STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

In re: Appeal of Nicholas A. 

Gulli 

Appeal of George Dunnett 

}

}

}

}

}

Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec 

Docket No. 185-8-00 Vtec

In re: Appeal of Gulli, et al.

Appeal of Dunnett, et al.

}

}

}

}

}

Docket No. 4-1-01 Vtec 

Docket No. 5-1-01 Vtec

Decision and Order on Motions to Amend March 22, 2001 Order and Motions to Intervene

Procedural History

Appellants represent themselves; Applicant Okemo Mountain, Inc. is represented by Lawrence 

G. Slason, Esq.; the Town is represented by J. Christopher Callahan, Esq. 

In Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec, Appellant Nicholas A. Gulli, on his own behalf only, appealed

from the April 21, 2000 decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the Town of 

Ludlow regarding approval of Phase I of Applicant= s Jackson Gore Project. Applicant filed a 

cross-appeal. It was consolidated with Docket No. 185-8-00 Vtec, in which Appellant George 

Dunnett, also on his own behalf only, had appealed from the decision of the DRB as issued on 

August 8, 2000 after reconsideration. Applicant= s motion to dismiss both these appeals for lack 

of standing on the part of the respective individual Appellants was granted on March 22, 2001. 

Appellants have now moved for reconsideration of that dismissal order, and have moved on 

behalf of their respective group members (see next paragraph) to intervene in Applicant= s crossappeal in Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec. Applicant has filed a withdrawal of its cross-appeal in 

Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec.

In Docket No. 4-1-01 Vtec, Appellant Nicholas A. Gulli and a group of 151other Ludlow 

residents filed an appeal on December 12, 2000 from what they characterized as a decision of the 

DRB A rendered on or about November 27, 2000, granting Subdivision Plan Approval and 

modification of the zoning regulations@ to Applicant= s Phase I Jackson Gore Project. The group 

members all signed the appeal and designated Mr. Gulli as their spokesperson; we will refer to 

them as A the Gulli group.@ In Docket No. 5-1-01 Vtec, Appellant George Dunnett and a group of 

10 other Ludlow residents filed an appeal on December 22, 2000 from what they characterized as 
A the November 27, 2000 decision@ of the DRB granting approval of Applicant Okemo 

Mountain, Inc.= s Jackson Gore Project A Final Parcel Map.@ The group members all signed the 

appeal and designated Mr. Dunnett as their spokesperson; we will refer to them as A the Dunnett 

group.@ other pending motions in these latter two appeals are addressed in a separate order also 

issued today.

Phase I of Applicant= s Jackson Gore Project is a mixed use recreational development, involving 

skiing and snowboarding facilities, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 120 acres, 

including a 117-unit condominium hotel, associated commercial facilities, parking and 

infrastructure. Applicant submitted a consolidated application to the DRB requesting site plan 

approval, conditional use approval, PUD approval and subdivision approval of the Phase I 

Jackson Gore Project.

The August 8, 2000 DRB decision required Applicant to submit for DRB approval a A Final 

Parcel Map@ showing the area to be delineated as open space, and showing the location of 

walking trails, cross-country ski trails, bike paths and picnic areas within the land designated as 

open space, with access directly from the so-called A day use@ parking lots. Applicant submitted a 

A Final Parcel Map@ dated October 4, 2000; the DRB took action to approve this map on 

November 27 (or 30), 2000.

Motions to Amend

Mr. Dunnett seeks correction of the Court= s March 22, 2001 order so that the reference to the A

final site plan is corrected to the term A Final Parcel Map@ as used earlier in the decision and as 

used in the PUD regulations. Mr. Dunnett= s motion is GRANTED. The correct term is A Final 

Parcel Map@ and this Court has no wish to import additional confusion or imprecision into an 

already complex case. Accordingly, the following sentence in the last paragraph on page 4 of the 

March 22, 2001 decision and order:

A The scope of these appeals is limited by the scope of the November 2000 decision appealed 

from, that is, the decision of the DRB approving the Final Site Plan and determining whether that 

site plan is consistent with the August 2000 permit approvals.@

is hereby amended to read as follows:

A The scope of these appeals is limited by the scope of the November 2000 decision appealed 

from, that is, the decision of the DRB approving the Final Parcel Map and determining whether 

that Final Parcel Map is consistent with the August 2000 permit approvals.@

In Appeal of Gulli, Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec, Mr. Gulli seeks reconsideration of the Court= s 

March 22, 2001 order dismissing his individual appeal of the DRB= s August 8, 2000 decision 

(filed prior to that decision= s having become final) for lack of standing. He argues that both he 

and the other petitioners were allowed by the DRB to participate as interested parties during the 

DRB proceedings, and that he filed his appeal to this Court as an individual, rather than 

organizing the group of petitioners to appeal, A to make it easier for all parties and the Court.@ He 
argues both that Okemo waived its rights to object to his standing before this Court, and that the 

other petitioners in the Gulli Group would have joined in his appeal had they realized that they 

would otherwise be excluded from proceedings before this Court. Mr. Gulli= s Motion for 

Reconsideration is DENIED. Similarly, to the extent that Mr. Dunnett= s recent filings request 

reconsideration of the dismissal order in Docket No. 185-8-00 Vtec, it is DENIED.

Mr. Gulli and Mr. Dunnett, with the other petitioners, may and evidently did have standing to 

participate at the DRB as a group or groups under 24 V.S.A. ' 4464(b)(4). However, all 

participants in zoning matters, as well as the DRB and this Court, are bound by the same 

procedural rules. No group of ten or more petitioners appealed the August 8, 2000 DRB decision. 

Rather, Mr. Gulli and Mr. Dunnett each filed an individual appeal. Title 24 V.S.A. ' 4464(b) 

establishes the criteria for individual (' 4464(b)(3)) and group (' 4464(b)(4)) standing to bring

an appeal; 24 V.S.A. ' ' 4472(a) and (d) establish the consequences for failing to file a ' 4471 

appeal in this Court. The other members of the groups did not file an appeal of the August 8, 

2000 decision, and the Court cannot go back in time to relieve them of the consequences of their 

failure to have done so. 

On April 4, 2001, Okemo Mountain, Inc. withdrew its cross-appeal, and moved to dismiss 

Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec, as neither the direct nor the cross-appeal remained in the case. Mr. 

Dunnett and the Dunnett Group, and Mr. Gulli and the Gulli Group, have each moved to 

intervene in that cross-appeal. Because the cross-appeal has been withdrawn, the motions to 

intervene in it are DENIED as MOOT. Docket No. 135-6-00 Vtec is therefore DISMISSED. By 

another order issued today, we address the remaining issues in and progress of In Appeal of 

Gulli, et al., Docket No. 4-1-01 Vtec and Appeal of Dunnett, et al., Docket No. 5-1-01 Vtec.

Done at Barre, Vermont, this 30th day of April, 2001.

___________________

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge

Footnotes

1. Two of the group members have since withdrawn, leaving the Gulli group at 14 members, 

including Mr. Gulli.