State of Vermont Superior Court—Environmental Division

=================================================== ======================= E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N

=================================================== =======================
In re Wood NOV and Permit Applications, D ocket No. 138-8-10 Vtec (Appeal from Town of Hartford Zoning Board of Adjus tment decision)

*************************************************** ********************************** Town of Hartford v. Wood, Docket No . 1-1-11 Vtec (Municipal enforcement action)

Title: Motion to Enforce and for Contempt Filed: Ma y 30, 2014 Filed By: William F. Ellis, Attorney for Plaintiff Town of Hartford. Response in Opposition filed on 6/03/14 by Defendan t Marc Wood.
Response in Opposition filed on 7/07/14 by W. Scott Fewell, Attorney for Respondent Susan Wood.

X Granted ___ Denied ___ Other

This Court issued its Corrected Merits Decision and Judgment Order on March 27, 2012. That Decision and Judgment Order became final on August 12, 2013, after the Vermont Supreme Court issued its affirmation and denied Defendant Wood’s motion for reargument. See In re Wood NOV and Permit Applications, 2013 VT 40, 194 Vt. 190. By our March 27, 2012 Decision and Order, Defendant s were obligated to satisfy certain monetary and injunctive directives. In the pending motion, the Town of Hartford (“Town”) alleges that Defendants have failed and refused to satisfy those directives. The Town therefore asks the Court to enforce the Corrected Judgment Order and hold both Defendants in contempt for their failure to satisfy those directives. For the reasons detailed below, we do hereby GRANT the Town’s motion, conclude that both Defendants are in CONTEMPT , and direct that they immediately satisfy their ob ligations under our Corrected Judgment Order. In his responsive memorandum, Mr. Wood takes issue with the Town’s requests but fails to contest the Town’s factual representations. The To wn acknowledges that Defendants have paid the principal fine of $51,300.00, but asserts that Defe ndants have failed to pay the $10,664.76 in interes t that accrued on the judgment. Defendants do not contest the Town’s representations, but rather assert that they are presently unable to pay the accrued intere st and therefore request additional time to pay the remaining amount due in installments. More troubling is Mr. Wood’s response to the Town’s assertion that he has failed and refused to satisfy the injunctive directives contained in the Corrected Judgment Order. That Order established specific timelines for Defendants to hire a license d engineer for the specific purpose of preparing “a plan for the safe removal of the wall and [other] unauth orized improvements on the Diner and Club parcels . . . .” Corrected Judgment Order at 2, ¶ E. The Town has provided numerous extensions of th e deadlines by which Defendants were to: (a) disclose the engineer hired to prepare the plan required by the Court’s Order; (b) submit the engineer’s plan and a llow the Town to review and comment upon it; (c) complete the removal work, once approved by the Tow n; and (d) arrange for their engineer to certify th at the removal work was completed according to the app roved plans. Id. at 1–3, ¶¶ C–J.In re Wood NOV and Permit Apps., No. 138-8-10 & 1-1 -11 Vtec (EO on Motion for Contempt) (8-12-14) Pg. 2.

The undisputed facts presented show that Mr. Wood h as allowed each deadline and the agreedupon extensions to pass without complying with the Court’s Order. The exhibits presented by Mr. Wood reveal that the engineer he hired may not be aware of the directives of this Court (especially the dir ective that the offending wall and other structures be rem oved) and that Mr. Wood, instead, may have hired th e engineer to perform services directly counter to th e Order. He has refused the Town’s request to rece ive direct verification from the engineer that he is ev en aware of the terms of the Court’s Order. Mr. Wood continues to assert that his unpermitted a nd dangerous structures should be allowed to remain on his property, even after nearly fifteen y ears of disputes with the Town, Court rulings again st him, and affirmances of those orders by the Vermont Supreme Court. While Mrs. Wood appears to be less complicit and more of a silent partner in her husband’s unpermitted commercial endeavors, she has taken no actions towards conforming to the Court’s two-year-old Judgment Order.
For all these reasons, we find both Mr. and Mrs. Wo od in CONTEMPT of this Court’s March 27, 2012 Corrected Judgment Order. In GRANTING the Town of Hartford’s motion to enforce, we do hereby ORDER Mr. and Mrs. Wood to do the following within the n ext thirty days (i.e.: no later than 12:00 Noon on Friday, September 12, 2014 ):

1. Pay to the Town of Hartford the sum of $10,664.76;

2. Provide a full copy of this Court’s March 27, 2012 Corrected Merits Decision and Judgment Order to their engineers, Souhegan Valley Engineers , Inc., as well as a copy of this Entry Order;

3. Authorize their engineers to speak with any officia ls designated by the Town, so that the Town may confirm that Defendants’ directives confor m with this Court’s Orders;

4. Fulfill the remaining injunctive provisions of this Court’s March 27, 2012 Corrected Judgment Order, using September 12, 2014 as the final deadline to calculate all remaining deadlines.

Mr. Wood professes a desire to comply with this Cou rt’s Order. His actions contradict his words. He asserts that the Town has defrauded him and the Court, but he offers no specific facts to support t hat assertion. We find his accusations against the Tow n not credible. We have specifically deferred our ruling upon the T own’s request to direct that Defendants reimburse the Town for its attorneys’ fees and expe nses in seeking the Defendants’ conformance with th is Court’s Order. We intend to rule upon that request after we determine whether Defendants cure their contempt, as directed by this Entry Order. We dire ct that the Town prepare an accounting of all of it s past and continuing expenses, so that the Court may revi ew and rule upon the reimbursement of those expenses, if warranted.

________________________________________ August 12, 2014_____ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date

=================================================== ======================== Date copies sent to: ____________ Clerk's Initials _______ Copies sent to: Appellant/Applicant/Respondent Marc Wood
William F. Ellis and Kimberlee J. Sturtevant, Attorneys for Appellee Tow n of Hartford W. Scott Fewell, Attorney for Respondent Susan Wood