Court Opinion

ID: 9909929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:13:17.496456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:03.302594
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division                                                                Docket No. 22-ENV-124
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

                                Dousevicz, Inc. CU and Site Plan Approval

                                      ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
  Title:           Motion to Strike (Motion #6)
  Filer:           Bridget Remington, Attorney for Neighbors
  Filed Date:      October 23, 2023
  Memorandum in Opposition, filed by Christopher Roy, Attorney for Appellant on November 1, 2023.
  Reply to Memo in Opposition, filed by Attorney Bridget Remington on November 3, 2023.
  The motion is DENIED.
           This is an appeal by Dousevicz, Inc. (“Appellant”), which applied for conditional use and site plan
  approval for the construction of a new 23,500-square foot, 99-unit senior living facility, with associated
  infrastructure and landscaping, to be located on Sand Hill Road in Castleton, Vermont (together, the “Project”).
  Presently before the Court is a motion to strike filed by interested persons Kathleen Culpo, Lara Beth
  Desjardins, Meredith Fabian, John Gillen, Mary Lee Harris, Wayne E. Pickett, Emilio Rosario, and John G.
  teRiele Jr. (together “Neighbors”). Specifically, the motion seeks to strike Appellant’s September 15, 2023,
  Supplemental Description of Proposed Facility and Disclosure of Experts (together “Supplement and
  Disclosure”) as being redundant and inadmissible because it goes outside the scope of the DRB’s review.
  Neighbors argue that the Supplement and Disclosure is a supplemental pleading to Appellant’s Motion for
  Summary Judgment which this Court denied on June 21, 2023. Alternatively, Neighbors suggest that if the
  Court finds the Supplement and Disclosure as merely a part of discovery, we should consider the motion to
  strike withdrawn.
           We need not consider the merits of Neighbors’ motion to strike because Appellant’s legal counsel has
  confirmed that the September 15 Supplement and Disclosure was intended as a discovery disclosure and not
  as a supplemental pleading. Appellant never filed the Supplement and Disclosure with the Court. Rather, they
  merely filed a Certificate of Discovery. Since there is nothing for us to strike from the record, we hereby
  DENY Neighbors’ motion to strike.
       So Ordered.

       Electronically signed at Newfane, Vermont on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, pursuant to
V.R.E.F. 9(d).

Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge
Superior Court, Environmental Division