1 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Vermont Unit Docket No. 126-9-13 Vtec

Mt. Mansfield UHS Event Board Permit DECISION ON MOTION 

Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment 

 On May 30, 2013, the Town of Jericho Zoning Administrator (ZA) issued permit #BT211x 

to the Mount Mansfield Union High School (MMUHS) allowing MMUHS to replace an existing 

message board with a LED (light emitting diode) event board sign. The ZA concluded that under 

24 V.S.A. § 4413 and the provisions in the Jericho Land Use and Development Regulations (the 

Regulations) incorporating § 4413, the Town of Jericho (the Town) had no authority to regulate 

the sign. Richard Kemmer (Appellant), who owns and occupies property across the street from 

the proposed sign, appealed that decision to the Town of Jericho Development Review Board 

(DRB). The DRB agreed with the determination of the ZA and upheld the permit on the grounds 

that the application to replace the sign was exempt from the requirements of the Regulations 

because of § 4413. Appellant appeals the DRB decision and moves for summary judgment that 

as a matter of law the DRB erred in determining that the LED sign application was exempt from 

municipal regulation. In his motion, Appellant asks the Court to remand the application to the 

DRB. Appellant is self-represented in this appeal, the Town has designated Jennifer Murray, the 

Town of Jericho Planning and Development Coordinator, as its representative, and MMUHS has 

designated Michael Weston, MMUHS Principal, as its representative. 

The Court will grant summary judgment where the movant (here, Appellant) shows that 

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” V.R.C.P. 56(a); V.R.E.C.P. 5(a)(2). The Court is directed to “accept as true the 

[factual] allegations made in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,” as long as they 

are supported by admissible evidentiary material, and to give the non-moving party (here, the 

Town) the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences. Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2004 
2 

VT 15, ¶ 15, 176 Vt. 356; see V.R.C.P. 56(c). The issue before us is purely legal: whether the 

Town of Jericho is without the authority to regulate an LED event board at MMUHS based on 24 

V.S.A. § 4413. 

Title 24 Section 4413(a) provides that municipalities may regulate “State- or communityowned and operated institutions and facilities” and “public and private schools and other 

educational institutions certified by the state department of education” only with respect to 

enumerated issues and “only to the extent that regulations do not have the effect of interfering 

with the intended functional use.” Those enumerated regulable issues are: “location, size, 

height, building bulk, yards, courts, setbacks, density of buildings, off-street parking, loading 

facilities, traffic, noise, lighting, landscaping, and screening requirements.” 24 V.S.A. § 4413(a). 

Appellant contends in his motion for summary judgment that the replacement of a nonilluminated event board with a LED message board must comply with any of the Regulations 

related to lighting because, contrary to the DRB’s holding, the municipality does have authority 

to regulate development at MMUHS with regard to lighting. We agree. Section 4413 does not 

exempt development at a community-owned and operated facility or a public school from all 

municipal regulation; rather, it limits the scope of that regulation to a list of enumerated topics. 

Thus, the DRB must find that an application for development complies with those regulations 

for which review is not limited by § 4413. Under § 4413, the Town can also regulate the size 

and height of the sign, and any landscaping requirements related to the new sign. For these 

reasons, we agree with Appellant that the DRB incorrectly found that the application should be 

granted because it is exempt from all municipal regulation. We therefore GRANT Appellant’s 

motion for summary judgment. 

Appellant asks that the Court remand the matter to the DRB to conduct the necessary 

review. The DRB did not, in its written findings of fact and decision, make any findings relative 

to whether the proposed sign complies with any of the Regulations. Rule 1 of the Vermont 

Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings requires that our rules “be construed and 

administered to ensure summary and expedited proceedings consistent with a full and fair 

determination in every matter coming before the court.” The Court is thus concerned about 

remanding this matter for further consideration by the DRB given the possibility that this appeal 
3 

may come before the Court again after the DRB’s determination is made. Nonetheless, given 

that the DRB did not consider the merits of the application and Appellant specifically requests 

such consideration, we conclude that we must remand this matter to the DRB so that it can 

decide the question of whether the application for the proposed LED event board sign complies 

with any applicable regulations. We, therefore, REMAND this matter to the Town of Jericho 

Development Review Board for consideration of whether the proposed replacement of the 

current event board at MMUHS with a LED event board complies with any applicable municipal 

regulations related to size, height, lighting, landscaping, or any other topic enumerated in 

§ 4413. 

This concludes the pending appeal before the Court. 

Electronically signed on April 29, 2014 at 03:45 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

_________________________________________ 

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge 

Superior Court, Environmental Division