STATE OF VERMONT 

 ENVIRONMENTAL COURT 

} 

In re: Appeal of Nott } Docket No. 141-6-00 Vtec 

} 

 Order Re: Motion for Stay and Motion for Summary Judgment

Appellant appealed from one condition of a decision of the Zoning Board of 

Adjustment of the Town of Hartford granting him Conditional Use Approval for a Home 

Industry. Appellant is represented by William J. Donahue, Esq.; the Town is represented 

by Kimberlee J. Sturtevant, Esq. No other parties have entered an appearance. 

Motion for Stay

On December 1, 2000, Appellant moved for a stay of the Hartford ZBA=s decision, 

which the Court treated as a request to stay only Condition 2 of the ZBA decision (as a stay 

of the entire decision would have left Appellant without conditional use approval 

altogether). The request for stay was based on Appellant=s inability to fulfill his snow 

plowing contractual obligations without the use of the off-premises employees at issue in 

this appeal. On December 1, 2000, the Court granted a temporary stay until further order 

of the Court after the Town would have had the opportunity to respond to the Motion to 

Stay. The temporary stay was subject to a condition that no more than three employees 

(other than Appellant) at any time shall be on the property which is the subject of this 

appeal. The Town has now filed its response. 

The condition prohibiting more than three employees of the business, regardless of 

where they are located, is the subject of the motion for summary judgment pending in this 

appeal. No other condition of the permit was appealed; accordingly all other findings and 

conditions remain in effect. This includes any requirement that only Appellant=s personal 

vehicle may be parked on the site over night, and the limitations on daily vehicular round 

trips to the property. Appellant must comply with all these conditions during the pendency 

of this appeal or face enforcement action from the Town, regardless of the ruling on the 

Motion for Stay. 
The purpose of the Court=s order on the Motion to Stay is to allow Appellant to fulfill 

his contractual obligations, but to minimize the impact of his business on the surrounding 

neighborhood, until the merits of the appeal of Condition 2 are resolved, either by summary 

judgment or by a hearing. Appellant has shown that he will face irreparable injury if he is 

prohibited from employing more than three persons off-site during the pendency of the 

appeal. He has not appealed or alleged harm from any other conditions. We cannot find 

that the public interest will be harmed if a limited stay is granted and all other conditions of 

the permit are met. Accordingly, the Motion for Stay is GRANTED in PART, as follows, 

until further order of the Court. 

Appellant may employ more than three persons off-site in his business, but 

no more than three employees may be on the property at any time, and no more 

than a total of ten round trips of vehicles may occur in any day, allocated as four 

round trips by Appellant and a total of six round trips for the total of Appellant=s 

employees. (See Finding Paragraph 16 of the decision on appeal). The Court 

recognizes that this requirement may mean that certain employees or vehicles must 

be dispatched by Appellant without their coming to the property in any given day or 

storm. 

Motion for Summary Judgment & ARecord on Appeal@

On December 14, 2000, Appellant filed his motion for summary judgment, and also 

filed a ARecord on Appeal@ consisting of a copy of the Zoning Regulations and copies of 

documents from the Zoning Administrator=s file. The Court hereby retains the Zoning 

Regulations for use in connection with the Motion for Summary Judgment and is returning 

to Attorney Donahue with this Order the remainder of the documents, as no Arecord@ is to 

be forwarded to the Court in a de novo appeal. V.R.C.P. 76(e)(4)(B). If any of those 

documents is necessary for Appellant=s Motion for Summary Judgment, they may be 

submitted if appropriate pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56. 

 We also note that we have a hearing date which may become available for this case 

in Woodstock on January 24, 2001. Accordingly, while the parties= summary judgment 

schedule now expires with any reply memo being filed on January 25, the parties may wish 

to accelerate the schedule to allow the Court to consider and decide the motion in advance 
of that date so that it could be used if necessary for any remaining issues on the merits. 

Please advise the court on or before January 4 of any such change in the summary 

judgment briefing schedule; if a telephone conference is necessary it may be held on 

January 5, 2001. 

Done at Barre, Vermont, this 26th day of December, 2000. 

_________________________________________________ 

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge