1 

Heney Zoning Permit Approval 

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Count 1, Municipal DRB Appeal from ZA (157-11-17 Vtec) 

Title: Motion to Defer Case (Motion 1) 

Filer: Daren and Tara Smith 

Attorney: Pro Se 

Filed Date: January 18, 2018 

Response in Opposition filed on 01/31/2018 by Attorney William Heney for Appellee Stephen 

Heney 

 Opposition 

The motion is DENIED. 

This appeal by Darren and Tara Smith challenges a Richmond Development Review Board 

decision granting their neighbors, Stephen and Jennifer Heney, permission to build a fence along 

a shared property boundary. 

The Smiths move to “defer” this matter before the Environmental Division of the Superior 

Court pending the outcome of a separate case in the Civil Division of the Superior Court. We 

infer from the filings that the Smiths and Heneys are engaged in a property or boundary line 

dispute involving an adverse possession claim in the area where the Heneys plan to build their 

fence. 

The Smiths’ motion effectively asks the Court to stay or continue the Environmental 

Division proceedings until the related Civil Division proceeding is resolved. If granting the stay 

would harm another party, the Smiths “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in 

being required to go forward” in order for the Court to grant their motion. In re Woodstock 

Cmty. Tr. & Hous. Vermont PRD, 2012 VT 87, ¶ 36, 192 Vt. 474. (quotation omitted). Stays are 

disfavored where lesser measures are available to protect the moving party’s interest. Id. 

(citation omitted). 

In this case, the Heneys have applied for a permit to build a fence. They request a final 

decision on that application. Staying the Environmental Division proceedings would harm that 

interest. The degree of harm is unclear, in part because it is unclear when the Civil Division matter

will be resolved. 

The Smiths assert that suspending the Environmental Division matter pending an 

outcome in the Civil Division will save time for the parties. We disagree, as the disposition of the

Civil Division matter is grounded in property and tort law which are beyond our jurisdiction in 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Docket No. 157-11-17 Vtec
2 

this appeal. The issues before the Court in this de novo appeal are those preserved by Appellant’s 

Statement of Questions and relate solely to whether the Heneys are entitled to a permit. If we 

stay this matter, and the outcome in the Civil Division is favorable to the Heneys, the Heneys then 

have to continue litigation in this Division to obtain a decision on their permit application. Rather

than saving time, the effect of a stay would be to add significant delay to the permitting process. 

Fairness and efficiency require that an applicant have some discretion in how it proceeds 

through the permitting process; neither the Court nor permit opponents should prevent this 

process from moving forward unless appropriate to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The Heneys 

oppose the Smiths’ motion and express a strong interest in having this appeal resolved 

expeditiously. Staying this appeal would further delay the permitting process with little savings 

in cost. 

We therefore decline to continue this appeal on the chance that resolution of the parties’ 

Civil Division matter may have some effect on the permit application. Because the Smiths have 

not demonstrated why moving forward in this case would cause them hardship or inequity, their 

motion to continue is DENIED. 

So ordered. 

Electronically signed on February 07, 2018 at 11:12 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

_________________________________________ 

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge 

Superior Court, Environmental Division 

Notifications: 

Appellant Daren Smith 

Appellant Tara L. Smith 

William Heney (ERN 9255), Attorney for Appellee Stephen Heney 

Amanda S. E Lafferty (ERN 5113), Attorney for Interested Person Town of Richmond 

nlow