Court Opinion

ID: 4268082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-24 00:08:08.769939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:27.430281
License: Public Domain

State of Vermont
                                Superior Court—Environmental Division

======================================================================
                   ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
======================================================================

In Re Bjerke Zoning Permit Denial                                                    Docket No. 72-5-11 Vtec

Title: Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 1)
Filed: December 12, 2011
Filed by: Applicant/Appellant Alan A. Bjerke
Response filed on January 19, 2012 by Interested Person City of Burlington

       Granted                          Denied                            X     Other

       Alan A. Bjerke (Applicant) appeals the City of Burlington Development Review Board’s
(the DRB) denial of his application for a zoning permit to make certain modifications to
property he owns in the City of Burlington, Vermont. In support of his appeal to this Court,
Applicant submitted a Statement of Questions containing three Questions. Currently pending
before the Court is Applicant’s motion for summary judgment on Question 1, which asks
whether his permit application was deemed approved under the City of Burlington
Comprehensive Development Ordinance (Ordinance) Section 3.2.5 and 24 V.S.A. § 4448(d).
       For the reasons detailed in this Court’s March 22, 2012 Decision, we conclude that the
undisputed facts indicate that the City took appropriate action on Applicant’s application
within 30 days of its submission. Thus, the application is not deemed approved under 24 V.S.A.
§ 4448(d) or the Ordinance. In our March 22, 2012 Decision we DENIED Applicant’s motion for
summary judgment on Question 1. We also advised the parties that we were inclined to
conclude that the City is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Question 1. However,
pursuant to the new version of V.R.C.P. 56, we gave Applicant notice and a reasonable time to
respond to the Court’s intended action. Neither party filed a response to our March 22, 2012
Decision.
       Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in this Court’s March 22, 2012 Decision, we
GRANT summary judgment in favor of the City of Burlington on Question 1 of Applicant’s
Statement of Questions. Applicant’s Questions 2 and 3 remain pending before this Court, and
the Court will now set this matter for trial. On or before Friday, April 27, 2012, parties shall
provide to the Court, in writing, their dates of unavailability for a one-day trial in July and
August, 2012.

_________________________________________                                               April 17, 2012
       Thomas G. Walsh, Judge                                                                Date
=============================================================================
Date copies sent to: ____________                                               Clerk's Initials _______
Copies sent to:
         Attorney Alan A. Bjerke, representing himself
         Kimberly J. Sturtevant, Attorney for Interested Person City of Burlington