1

STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
} In re: Appeal of } Shaun and Mary Reed } Docket No. 133-6-00 Vtec } }
Decision and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
Appellants appealed from a decision of the Planning Commission of the Town of Highgate denying approval to a proposed two-lot sub division. Appellants are represented by Brian P. Hehir, Esq.; the Town is represented by David A. Barra, Esq. Appellant has moved for summary judgment. The following facts are not in dispute unless other wise noted. Appellants own a parcel of land on Frontage Road, a djacent to a parcel owned by the Swanton-Highgate Gun Club, Inc. Appellants pro pose to divide their parcel into two single-family house lots, of 1.03 acres and 1.01 ac res respectively, each with access to Frontage Road. The lots are proposed to share a wa ter system from a drilled well, and to have individual wastewater disposal systems. Appel lants have received subdivision approval for this project from the State of Vermont

. The proposal falls within the definition of A minor subdivision @ in ' 200.7 of the Highgate Subdivision Regulations. Accordingly, App ellant = s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Question 1 of the Statement of Que stions. The proposed plat for the subdivision appears to co ntain all the items required by ' 610.1 and 610.3 1 referenced in Article IV of the Subdivision Regula tions. The Town = s Memorandum in Opposition presented no contested fac ts on this question, whether supported by affidavit or by reference to the plot plan in evidence. Accordingly, Appellant = s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Questi on 2 of the Statement of Questions. As to Question 3, whether the proposal satisfies th e requirements of ' 700 of the

1 Misnumbered as 600.3 in the Subdivision Regulation s, but contained on page 13 immediately following ' 610.2.2

Subdivision Regulations, the Town contests only cer tain of the subsections. In particular 2

, the Town contests ' 700.1 (whether the land is suitable for the develop ment); ' 700.4 (adequate provision for the control of runoff and e rosion); ' 700.7 (compatibility with surrounding properties (specifically the Gun Club)) ; and ' 700.8 (suitability for the proposed density). The Town has not come forward with argum ent or contested facts regarding any of the other criteria. Accordingly, Appellants = Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part as to the other sections of ' 700, and is denied as to ' 700.1; ' 700.4; ' 700.7; and ' 700.8. We will hold a hearing on the merits of tho se subsections.

Based on the foregoing, Appellants = Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Questions 1 and 2 of the Statement of Questions. As to Question 3 of the Statement of Questions it is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A hearing will be scheduled on the remaining portions of Question 3. We will hold a c onference on Thursday, December 28, 2000 at 9 a.m. to discuss the scheduling of this ma tter, as Judge Wright and Attorney Hehir
will be at the Chittenden District Court on another matter. Attorney Barra may participate by telephone or in person, at his election. He sha ll inform the Environmental Court no later than Wednesday, December 27, if he wishes to partic ipate by telephone, as he cannot call
in to reach the conference at the Chittenden Distri ct Court.

Done at Barre, Vermont, this 20 th day of December, 2000.

_________________________________________________ Merideth Wright Environmental Judge

2 But, unfortunately, without specifying the contes ted subsections.