Pintair Discretionary Permit (Sewer) 

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

 

Title: Motion to Dismiss (Motion 1) 

Filer: Town of Williston 

Attorney: Paul S. Gillies 

Filed Date: May 20, 2015 

Response in opposition filed on 05/31/2015 by Kevin Brochu, Appellant 

The motion is DENIED. 

The matter before the Court concerns property owned by Alex Pintair (Applicant) at 

7997 Williston Road in the City of Williston, Vermont (Property). On March 24, 2015 the Town 

of Williston Development Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing regarding annual 

growth management review and allocation for residential development proposals. Applicant 

sought approval for two units of allocation to construct a duplex on the Property, on which 

there is currently a single family dwelling. A group of neighbors, Kevin and Zuzana Brochu, 

Donald and Ingrid Luby, and Thomas Munn appealed the DRB’s decision granting Applicant’s 

allocation. Applicant is represented in this matter by Michael D. Johnston, Esq. The Town of 

Williston is represented by Paul S. Gillies, Esq. The neighbors appear as self-represented 

litigants. 

Now pending before this Court is the Town’s motion to dismiss neighbors Donald and 

Ingrid Luby from this appeal. The Town argues that the Lubys did not participate in the DRB 

process below, and that they thus fail to meet the requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a). The 

requirements for standing to appeal a decision of a municipal panel are addressed by statute; 

therefore, we must ensure that each requirement is met so as not to “judicially expand the 

class of persons” whom the legislature has authorized to appeal such decisions. In re Verizon 

Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62, ¶ 7, 188 Vt. 262 (quoting Garzo v. Stowe Bd. of 

Adjustment, 144 Vt. 298, 302 (1984)). A prospective appellant whose standing has been 

challenged must demonstrate to the Court that they do, in fact, meet the requirements for 

standing. See, e.g., Brod v. Agency of Natural Res., 2007 VT 87, ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 234. 

To have standing to appeal a decision of a municipal panel, a prospective appellant must 

demonstrate both that they qualify as an “interested person” under one of the categories 

defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b) and that they have participated in the proceedings below. See 24 

V.S.A. § 4471(a) (authorizing an “interested person who has participated in a municipal 

regulatory proceeding” to appeal “a decision rendered in that proceeding by an appropriate 

municipal panel”). Participation “shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, 

evidence or a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding.” Id. 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Vermont Unit Docket No. 54-5-15 Vtec
2 

The Lubys do not demonstrate, and the minutes of the public hearing do not show, that 

they participated in the municipal proceedings below. For this reason, they have failed to 

satisfy the requirements to be afforded appellant status under 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a). Finding that 

the Lubys own or occupy property abutting the Property, however, we conclude that they are 

entitled to interested person status. The Town’s motion is therefore GRANTED in Part and

Denied in Part. The Lubys are dismissed as appellants, however, they may fully participate as 

interested parties. 

Electronically signed on July 13, 2015 at 03:15 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

_________________________________________ 

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge 

Superior Court, Environmental Division 

Notifications: 

Appellant Kevin Brochu 

Appellant Zuzana Brochu 

Appellant Donald Luby 

Appellant Ingrid Luby 

Appellant Thomas Munn 

Paul S. Gillies (ERN 3786), Attorney for Interested Person Town of Williston 

Michael D. Johnson (ERN 5522), Attorney for Appellee Alex Pintair 

cstanton