Opinion ID: 6221014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for Additional Hearing

Text: ¶ 23. We next consider whether the Environmental Division erred in concluding that neighbors did not request an additional hearing in the JO appeal to present evidence regarding the project footprint in light of stormwater permit conditions. There was no error. ¶ 24. Under Vermont Rule for Environmental Court Proceedings 2(b), “where the same violation or project involves multiple proceedings that have resulted or may result in separate hearings or appeals in the Environmental Court, or where different violations or projects involve significant common issues of law or fact,” the Environmental Division may coordinate the proceedings and “make other orders that will promote expeditious and fair proceedings and avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” The court enjoys discretionary authority to control its docket to preserve judicial resources and ensure efficient disposition of cases. See, e.g., In re Woodstock Cmty. Tr. & Hous. Vt. PRD, 2012 VT 87, ¶ 36, 192 Vt. 474, 60 A.3d 686 (observing that “every court has the power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket”) (quotation omitted); State v. Jones, 157 Vt. 553, 559, 601 A.2d 502, 505 (1991) (leaving control of docket management with courts). ¶ 25. At the merits hearing, neighbors agreed to bifurcate the matter for the court to resolve the “involved land” and “owned or controlled by a person” issues based on the evidence presented at the merits hearing and then resolve the stormwater and project-footprint issues separately, with neighbors reserving the opportunity to “request that the record be reopened.” In a later order memorializing the agreement, the court directed Snowstone to obtain the necessary stormwater permits and inform the court and neighbors of the permit determination within ten days of that determination. That order also gave the parties thirty days from the permit determination 10 to request a further hearing in the JO appeal and warned that if no party requested such a hearing, the court would issue a final judgment. ¶ 26. Neighbors do not dispute that they did not file any request with the court within thirty days of the permit decision. Instead, they argue that the motion to consolidate the JO and MSGP appeals qualifies as a request for a further hearing in the JO appeal. But even if we were to consider the motion to consolidate as a motion to reopen the JO appeal, that motion was filed well beyond the thirty-day deadline the court imposed—forty-four days after the permit decision, to be exact. Nor can we agree with neighbors that Snowstone’s failure to inform them and the court of the permit decision within ten days excuses their own failure to abide by the court’s order. Neighbors, who participated in the stormwater permitting proceedings, had notice that the permit was issued at least by July 5, 2019, when they appealed the MSGP permit decision. Still, they did not meet the court’s July 12 deadline. We cannot fault the court for enforcing its own rules in the face of this default.