Court Opinion

ID: 4268392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-24 00:09:39.563646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:51:58.402578
License: Public Domain

Environmental Court of Vermont
                               State of Vermont

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

Wood Certificate of Occupancy                     Docket No. 176-8-07 Vtec
     (Appeal from denial of COO)

Title: Motion to Compel & Exact Sanctions on Appellee, No 8
Filed:      February 20, 2009
Filed By: Appellants Marc & Susan Wood

Response filed: February 23, 2009
Filed By: Town of Hartford.

Reply Filed: February 23, 2009
Filed By: Appellants Marc & Susan Wood

 ___ Granted               _X_ Denied                  ___ Other

      It remains unclear to the Court what material relevance could be gleaned
from Appellant’s July 19, 1999 letter to the Town, which the Town now certifies
that it does not have.    In fact, the Town has further certified, through its
attorney’s representations, that the Town has no record of ever receiving the
requested letter. In fact, the Town and its attorney now suspect the requested
letter never was received.
      In any event, Appellants’ assertion now is that a letter from Mr. Wood,
sent prior to the ZBA’s approval of Phase I of his project, somehow should
govern or be relied upon for his assertion that he was entitled to a
certificate of occupancy before his project was completed.     The actual ZBA
approvals of his project provide for no such authority to issue a certificate
of occupancy prior to completion of a portion of his project.   We know of no
legal authority for a ZBA in the first instance, or this Court on appeal, to
rely upon an applicant letter for a permit condition not contained in the
permit itself.    We are therefore unable to determine the relevancy of the
document Appellants now seek.
      No party to litigation should be subject to sanctions or an order to
compel delivery of a document for which they have diligently searched and have
been unable to locate. We therefore decline to enter the requested order and
sanctions against the Town or its attorney.

      _________________________________________        __June 10, 2009__
            Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                          Date
===============================================================================
Date copies sent to: ____________               Clerk's Initials _______
Copies sent to:
    Appellant Marc & Susan Wood
    Attorney William F. Ellis for Appellee Town of Hartford