Court Opinion

ID: 4268174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-24 00:08:39.720162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:28.067054
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                Environmental Division
======================================================================
                 ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
======================================================================
In re: Verizon Wireless Westford Site CU & SP,               Docket No. 49-4-11 Vtec
Project:    Duffy Hill Road Tower Site
Applicant: NYNEX Mobile Ltd Partnership and Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon
           Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”)
Title: Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 1)
Filed:        June 9, 2011
Filed By: Brian Sullivan, Attorney for Verizon Wireless
Response in Opposition filed on 06/22/11 by Appellant Randy J. Bishop.

_X_ Granted                   ___ Denied                    ___ Other

       Appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal, filed by Mr. Bishop, for lack of
participation in the municipal proceeding below. The applicable facts presented
appear undisputed: Mr. Bishop did not participate, either in person or in writing, in
the municipal proceedings concerning Appellee’s application. Since participation is a
prerequisite for an appeal before this Court, Mr. Bishop’s lack of participation
precludes this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal.
      In general, only interested persons—as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)—who
have participated in the municipal proceeding below may appeal that determination to
this Court. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1). An appellant who fails to participate “within
the [municipal] proceeding,” lacks standing to appeal. See In re Verizon Wireless
Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62, ¶ 14.
        We are saddened to learn of Appellant’s mother’s illness. But Appellant has
failed to explain why circumstances prohibited him from submitting a brief letter of his
concerns to the Town of Westford DRB. Even a brief expression of his concerns about
Applicant’s project would have qualified as “participation”, as that term is defined in
24 V.S.A. § 4471(a).
      For all these reasons, we conclude that Appellant’s failure to participate in the
DRB proceeding forecloses this Court’s jurisdictional authority to hear his appeal.
Appellee’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.

___________________________________________      ___June 23, 2011___
   Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                             Date
======================================================================
Date copies sent to: ____________             Clerk's Initials _______
Copies sent to:
  Appellant Randy J. Bishop
  Brian Sullivan, Attorney for Appellees NYNEX Mobile Ltd Partnership and Cellco Partnership
     d/b/a Verizon Wireless
  Interested Person Town of Westford