STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

In re: Appeal of William Karstens, 

Judith Karstens, Andrew 

LaBounty, Judy Lawrence, and 

James Jewett (on behalf of Esther 

Jewett)

}

}

}

}

}

Docket No. 264-11-00 Vtec

Decision and Order on Appellees= Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment

Appellants appealed from a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of 

Franklin, granting conditional use approval to Appellee-Applicants Richard and Joyce Boudreau 

to construct a canopy over the shooting range on their property at 1420 Gallup Road. Appellants 

are represented by Jon Anderson, Esq.; Appellee-Applicants are represented by Jesse D. 

Bugbee, Esq.; the Town is represented by Joseph S. McLean, Esq. Appellee-Applicants have 

moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed, which was treated as a motion for summary 

judgment by Appellants, as it was accompanied by an affidavit. The Town has not taken an active 

role to date in this appeal.

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. At the June 15, 2000 hearing on 

Appellee-Application, which Appellant William Karstens attended, the ZBA= s decision approving 

the application was announced orally. A written decision by the ZBA on Appellee-Applicants=

conditional use application was issued on August 1, 2000. Appellee-Applicants were sent a copy 

the same day, but no copies were sent to any other person. A zoning permit was issued on 

August 17, 2000, and a copy was posted in the office of Town Clerk. No one appealed the 

issuance of the zoning permit.

After Appellant William Karstens inquired of the Town Clerk in October whether a decision had 

been issued on the application, the Town Clerk told him that it had, and mailed copies of the 

decision to him and to all adjoining landowners on October 12, 2000, a Thursday. Appellant 

William Karstens received the written decision the following day. He filed the notice of appeal of 

the ZBA decision on November 13, 2000, a Monday.

Appellee-Applicants do not dispute that Mr. Karstens was entitled to be sent a copy of the 

decision. Under the suggestion in the last sentence of Leo= s Motors, Inc. v. Town of 

Manchester, 158 Vt. 561, 566 (1992), when an interested person entitled to written notice of a 

ZBA decision is sent the decision after the appeal period has otherwise run, the appeal period 

should begin to be counted from the date the Town Clerk in fact mailed the decision to him. 

The decision was mailed to him on October 12, 2000. Under 1 V.S.A. ' 138, and V.R.C.P. 6(a), 

the day when the act is done is not included in the computation; therefore, the expiration of the 

thirty day appeal period in fact fell on November 11, 2000, a Saturday. Under V.R.C.P. 6(a), the 

last day of the period is included, except if it falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or holiday, in which 

event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. 

Therefore the period to appeal ran through Monday, November 13, 2000, and the appeal was 

timely filed.

We do not here reach the questions of whether failure to appeal the issuance of the zoning permit 

should have any preclusive effect in the present case, or whether Appellee-Applicants may 

ultimately have any financial recourse against the Town if the merits of the conditional use permit 

application are resolved differently in this Court than they were before the ZBA. My Sister's Place 

v. City of Burlington, 139 Vt. 602 (1981).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Appellee-Applicants= Motion to Dismiss the appeal as 

untimely, or for Summary Judgment, is DENIED. We will hold a telephone conference on June 1, 

2001, to discuss whether the merits of the matter should be set for hearing, or whether Questions 

3 and 1 of the Statement of Questions should be resolved first by summary judgment, or both.

Done at Barre, Vermont, this 23rd day of May, 2001.

___________________

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge