Court Opinion

ID: 4268177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-24 00:08:40.386399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:18:11.522017
License: Public Domain

State of Vermont
                                  Superior Court—Environmental Division

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

In re Wood NOV and Permit Applications                                             Docket No. 138-8-10 Vtec
(Appeal from Town of Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment decision)
***************************************************************************************
Town of Hartford v. Wood                                                            Docket No. 1-1-11 Vtec
(Municipal enforcement action)

Title: Motion to Reconsider/Amend (Filing No. 5)
Filed: May 10, 2011
Filed By: Paul S. Gillies, Attorney for Appellant/Applicant Marc Wood
Response in Opposition filed on 5/19/11 by William F. Ellis, Attorney for Appellee Town of Hartford

 X Granted                          ___ Denied                     ___ Other

          Before the Court is a motion asking us, in the interest of fairness, to allow Mr. Wood the opportunity
to respond to the Town of Hartford’s (“Town”) filing of May 13, 2011. The Town’s May 13 filing is the
latest filing by the Town responding to Mr. Wood’s motion for summary judgment, which is also pending
before the Court and which we addressed in a separate Entry Order issued today. Mr. Wood requests, if we
do not allow him to reply, that we disregard the Town’s May 13 filing and issue a ruling on the motion for
summary judgment based solely on the motion, the Town’s original response of April 1, and Mr. Wood’s
subsequent reply.

       In ruling on Mr. Wood’s motion for summary judgment, we elected to not consider the Town’s filing
of May 13; we only took into consideration Mr. Wood’s February 18 motion, the Town’s April 1 response,
and Mr. Wood’s subsequent April 12 reply, plus any associated attachments. Therefore, we hereby GRANT
Mr. Wood’s request that we only consider these documents in ruling on his motion. This negates the need to
allow Mr. Wood to submit a subsequent reply memorandum.

        In issuing this Entry Order we are not ruling on any arguments Mr. Wood includes in this motion to
reconsider or alter that address the qualifications of the Town’s engineering expert. Mr. Wood is permitted
to raise these arguments at trial, as discussed in our Entry Order, also issued today, responding to Mr.
Wood’s motion in limine.

________________________________________               May 20, 2011_____
       Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                            Date
=============================================================================
Date copies sent to: ____________                                          Clerk's Initials _______
Copies sent to:
  Paul S. Gillies, Attorney for Appellant/Applicant Marc Wood
  William F. Ellis, Attorney for Appellee Town of Hartford
  Kimberlee Sturtevant, Co-counsel for Appellee