1 The Court notes that a typographical error in the February 5, 2008 decision stated

the year in this date as 2007; all other dates in t he decision were stated correctly. If any party was misled by that error please advise the Co urt as soon as possible.

2 Corrections to this document were filed on Februa ry 6, 2008.

1 STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
} In re: Deer View LLC PUD Subdivision Application } Docket No. 182-8-07 Vtec (Appeal of Madden) } }
Decision and Order on Appellee-Applicant’s Motion f or Summary Judgment Appellant John Madden appealed from a decision of t he Planning Commission of the Town of New Haven approving a six-lot commercia l PUD subdivision. Appellant has appeared and represents himself; Appellee-ApplicantDeer View, LLC is represented by Evan Punderson, Esq.; and the Town is represented by James Ouimette, Esq. The Court issued a Decision and Order on February 5 , 2008, resolving AppelleeApplicant’s motions to dismiss Questions 2 and 3 ofthe Statement of Questions, AppelleeApplicant’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack o f standing, and Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The February 5, 2008 decision left open Appellee-Applicant’s motion for summary judgment, as the scheduling order gover ning this appeal allowed Appellant until February 15 1 to file any further response to Appellee-Applicant ’s motion for summary judgment, counted from the January 25, 2008 filing of Mr. Stout’s revised affidavit. The February 5, 2008 decision noted that Appellant had filed a response on February 1, 2008 2 to Appellee-Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgmen t, and that Appellant’s response was in the form of a photocopy of that mot ion, with handwritten deletions and2

additions. Most importantly, the Court noted that A ppellant had not then filed any affidavits or other material to counter the January 22, 2008 affidavit of Appellee-Applicant’s project engineer, filed on January 25, 2008 in supp ort of Appellee-Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant had previously filed w ith the Court, in support of his own motion for summary judgment, accident summaries fro m the Vermont Agency of Transportation on Route 7 from the years 1998 throu gh 2005, between Town Hill Road and River Road, as well as one investigation report of a 2002 accident at the intersection of Dog
Team Road with Route 7. The February 5, 2008 decision then laid out the s tandard that Vermont courts must apply in analyzing a motion for summary judgment, as follows:

As discussed in In re Morris 7-Lot Subdivision, 71-4-07 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 26, 2007), each party’s motion for summary j udgment is analyzed giving the nonmoving party the benefit of all reaso nable doubts and inferences. Alpine Haven Property Owners Ass'n, In c. v. Deptula , 175 Vt. 559, 561, 2003 VT 51, ¶8. In responding to a motio n for summary judgment supported by affidavits and other evidentiary mater ial, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in its pleadings.” White v. Quechee Lakes Landowners’ Ass’n, 170 Vt. 25, 28 (1999). Rather, V.R.C.P. 56(e) requires that the opposing party must set for th specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Dillon v. Champion Jogb ra, Inc. , 175 Vt. 1, 2–3 (2002). Those facts must be supported by affidavit s or other evidentiary material. Morway v. Trombly , 173 Vt. 266, 270 (2001). It is not sufficient fo r the opposing party to rely on “conclusory allegatio ns or mere conjecture.” Mello v. Cohen, 168 Vt. 639, 641 (1998). “[M]ere allegations of counsel unsupported by documented evidence are not enough t o create a genuine issue of material fact” sufficient to preclude summ ary judgment. Progressive Ins. Co. v. Wasoka , 178 Vt. 337, 349, 2005 VT 76, ¶25. The February 5, 2008 decision gave Appellant the op portunity to file any such responsive affidavits or otherwise to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. As of the date of today’s decision, nothing further has been received at the Court from Appellant. We must therefore proceed to rule on Appellee-Appli cant’s Motion for Summary3 The February 5, 2008 decision incorporated former Questions 2 and 3 into

Question 1.

3 Judgment, as the final pretrial telephone conferenc e is scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2008, and the trial is scheduled for March 12, 2008. Any facts stated in this decision are undisputed un less otherwise noted; however, the facts as stated in the February 5, 2008 decisio n will not be restated unless necessary to
this decision. The internal subdivision roadway of the proposed Pl anned Unit Development (PUD) subdivision has a single access onto Route 7 approximately 2463 feet south of the intersection of Hunt Road with Route 7. Appellant has raised the issue 3 of whether the proposal will cause danger to public safety due to the potential for traffic accidents on Route 7 near the project driveway. Appellant has filed accident summaries from the Vermont Agency of Transportation on Route 7 from th e years 1998 through 2005, and an investigation report of a 2002 accident at the inte rsection of Dog Team Road with Route 7, but has not filed any affidavits of any expert or o ther witnesses linking this accident data to the location, topography or sight distances thatcould be affected by the proposed intersection of the project driveway with Route 7. Appellee-Applicant has come forward with an affidavit of the project engineer describin g the topography of Route 7 and other roadways in the project’s vicinity, and describing the long unobstructed sight distances north and south of the project driveway, together w ith the engineer’s professional engineering opinion that the layout and design of t he roads will not cause any danger to public safety. Appellant, as the nonmoving party, is to be given t he benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences in analyzing Appellee-Applica nt’s motion for summary judgment. Giving Appellant the benefit of all reasonable doub ts and inferences, Appellee-Applicant’s4

motion for summary judgment must be granted. Appel lant’s accident report information, taken alone without any expert opinion linking thatinformation to the proposed project driveway, does not raise a reasonable inference reg arding the potential effect of the project driveway on public safety on Route 7. Appellant ha s not come forward with any disputed material facts for trial regarding the topography o f Route 7 and other roadways in the project’s vicinity, or regarding the long unobstruc ted sight distances north and south of the project driveway. Appellant has not shown that mat erial facts are in dispute to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the opinion expre ssed in the project engineer’s affidavit that the layout and design of the proposed PUD subd ivision access driveway will not cause any danger to public safety as to the traffic using Route 7.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby O RDERED and ADJUDGED that Appellee-Applicant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, concluding this appeal. The telephone conference scheduled for February 25, 2008 and the trial scheduled for March 12, 2008 are therefore CANCELLED.

Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 20 thday of February, 2008.

_________________________________________________ Merideth Wright Environmental Judge