Court Opinion

ID: 9949751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 15:18:22.949845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:34.865335
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division                                                    Docket No. 23-ENV-00057
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

                                          Spaulding NOV
                                           ENTRY ORDER
  Title:          Motion to Clarify and/or Dismiss Questions and to Strike (Motion: 3)
  Filer:          Beriah C. Smith, Esq.
  Filed Date:     October 20, 2023
           Appellant’s Reply to Motion, filed on November 3, 2023, by Edward Spaulding.
  The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
           This is an appeal of a Town of Waitsfield Development Review Board (DRB) decision
  denying Edward and Courtney Spaulding’s (Appellants or the Spauldings) appeal of a February
  13, 2023 Notice of Violation (NOV). the Town of Waitsfield Planning and Zoning Administrator
  (Zoning Administrator) issued the NOV which alleges that the placement of a storage container
  (the Storage Container) on the Spauldings’ property located at 31 Center Fayston Road,
  Waitsfield, Vermont (the Property) without a zoning permit and within the front setback on the
  Property on Center Fayston Road are violations.
           Appellants appeal the DRB’s decision to this Court. Presently before the Court is the Town
  of Waitsfield’s (Town) motion to clarify or dismiss and strike portions of the Spauldings’
  Statement of Questions.
                                            Legal Standard
           Statements of Questions in the Environmental Division are subject to a motion to dismiss
  or clarify the questions therein. V.R.E.C.P. 5(f). With respect to motions to clarify questions, this
  Court has the discretion to order an appellant, here the Spauldings, to clarify or narrow their
  Statement of Questions. See In re Atwood Planned Unit Dev., 2017 VT 16, ¶ 14, 204 Vt. 301. We
  will direct a party to clarify its questions when it is necessary to ensure that “the claims have

                                                   1
enough specificity to notify the opposing party and the court of the issues on appeal.” Id. (citing
In re Verizon Wireless Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62, ¶ 20, 188 Vt. 262; In re Gulli, 174 Vt. 582, 583
(2002) (mem.)).
         With respect to motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we follow the
standards established by Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure (V.R.C.P.) Rule 12(b)(1), because the
civil rules govern proceedings in this Court. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(a)(2). When considering Rule
12(b)(1) motions to dismiss, this Court accepts all uncontroverted factual allegations as true and
construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT
72, ¶ 2, 190 Vt. 245. We, therefore, provide deference to the Spauldings in reviewing the pending
motion.
         Pursuant to the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, a Rule 12(b)(6) “motion to dismiss
serves to identify an insufficient cause of action... where essential elements are not alleged.”
Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, ¶ 13, 184 Vt. 1. The Court, in reviewing a motion to dismiss,
must “accept all facts as pleaded in the complaint [and] accept as true all reasonable inferences
derived therefrom ....” Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, 2015 VT 129, ¶ 12, 200 Vt. 465.
However, the Court is “not required to accept as true ‘conclusory allegations masquerading as
factual conclusions' in 12(b)(6) analysis.” Colby, 2008 VT 20, ¶ 10 (quoting Smith v. Local 819
I.B.T. Pension Plan, 291 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir. 2002)).
         Finally, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(f):
                  Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or,
                  if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion
                  made by a party within 21 days after the service of the pleading
                  upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the
                  court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient
                  defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
                  matter.
V.R.C.P. 12(f).
                                                Discussion
    I.      Question 1
         Question 1 asks:
                  1.     The Storage Container or ISO Container was placed on our
                  property in October of 2020, this is the third use of such a container

                                                    2
                   for the storage of property. The first being in 2016 for the lead paint
                   remediation of the home by the State of Vermont. This third ISO
                   Container is necessary due to the damage to our home and
                   attached garage resulting from flooding due to a failed culvert
                   adjacent to our property and maintained by the Town of Waitsfield.
                   Settlement was reached with the Town of Waitsfield regarding this
                   culvert’s failure and the damage to our property resulting from
                   Culvert #1 on August 2016. We have taken issue with the amount
                   of the settlement ($15,000 dollars) as this failed to cover the
                   damage and has significantly delayed remediation of the damage.
                   We have been in communication with the town over this and other
                   damage to our property since 2014. We see this alleged
                   enforcement of a Zoning Bylaw against us as an act of retaliation
                   by the Town’s “new” administration, as we previously had a verbal
                   understanding with the Town of Waitsfield that accompanied the
                   signed Settlement that the town would support our recovery from
                   the flooding incidents resulting from culvert #1’s failure. Would an
                   act of retaliation by the Town of Waitsfield not violate the
                   settlement agreement and the accompanying verbal agreement?

Appellants’ Statement of Questions (filed on Aug. 25, 2023).1
        While the Question contains significant argument and background that is inappropriate
in a Statement of Questions, see In re Northeast Materials Grp., LLC, No. 143-10-12 Vtec, slip op.
at 3 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. May 8, 2013) (Walsh, J.) (citing V.R.C.P. 8(a)). The Court interprets
the crux of the Question as whether the NOV is a violation of a settlement agreement between
the parties.2 This question is outside the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction.
        The Environmental Division is one of limited jurisdiction. 4 V.S.A. § 34 (defining the
jurisdiction of the Environmental Division). This Court does not have jurisdiction over private
contractual disputes between parties. Id. The proper Court for such disputes in the State of
Vermont is the Civil Division. See 4 V.S.A. § 31 (defining the jurisdiction of the Civil Division).
Thus, Question 1 addresses issues outside the scope of this Court’s limited jurisdiction as it seeks
to have this Court determine whether actions by the Town are in violation of a contractual
agreement between the parties. The Town’s motion to dismiss Question 1 is GRANTED.

        1
           Given the unique lengthiness of each of the Appellants’ nine Questions, the Court would typically decline
to restate each Question in this Entry Order. In this instance, however, the number of issues and arguments raised
in each Question requires that the Court to include the entirety of each Question in this Entry Order.
        2
            Appellants’ reply to the pending motion did not address the substantive issues raised by the Town.

                                                          3
II.    Questions 2 and 3
Questions 2 and 3 ask:
          2. It is our understanding that an “ISO container” or “storage
          container” or “Intermodal Container” is regulated and defined
          under Federal Law (29 CFR Section 1918.2):
                  “Intermodal container means a reusable cargo
                  container of a rigid construction and rectangular
                  configuration; fitted with devices permitting its
                  ready handling, particularly its transfer from one
                  mode of transport to another; so, designed to be
                  readily filled and emptied; intended to contain one
                  or more articles of cargo or bulk commodities for
                  transportation by water and one or more other
                  transport modes. The term includes completely
                  enclosed units, open top units, fractional height
                  units, units incorporating liquid or gas tanks and
                  other variations fitting into the container system. It
                  does not include cylinders, drums, crates, cases,
                  cartons, packages, sacks, unitized loads or any other
                  form of packaging.”
          Under Federal Law (49 CFR 171.8):
                  “Freight container means a reusable container
                  having a volume of 64 cubic feet or more, designed
                  and constructed to permit being lifted with its
                  contents intact and intended primarily for
                  containment of packages (in unit form) during
                  transportation.”
          And
                  ”Intermodal container means a freight container
                  designed and constructed to permit it to be used
                  interchangeably in two or more modes of
                  transport.”
          Under Department of Transportation (Title 49, Chapter 59 §5901):
                  “(4) "container" has the meaning given the term
                  "freight container" by the International Standards
                  Organization in Series 1, Freight Containers, 3d
                  Edition (reference number ISO668–1979(E)),
                  including successive revisions, and similar
                  containers that are used in providing transportation
                  in interstate commerce.”

                                         4
Does the State of Vermont, and more specifically the Town of
Waitsfield, have the right to redefine a federally and legally defined
“vehicle,” such as an ISO container, under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Transportation to fit the whim of a Zoning
Administrator who has taken it upon himself to define this as a
“structure”? Does federal law not take precedent over state laws
and town ordinances?
3. Since the construction of this container has not been altered and
is still viable for transportation via domestic, interstate, and even
international commerce, it is our understanding that the
jurisdiction for the storage container remains with the Federal
Government. Eric Rath (Exhibit 1) first addressed the need to define
the growing use of ISO containers throughout international and
interstate commerce as early as 1975. (Exhibit 2a) Other States
appear to be struggling with the definition of an ISO container as
well. It even appears that California (Exhibit 2b) needed to re-
define the difference between an ISO container, unaltered from it’s
certified purpose, as an interstate commerce “vehicle” and that of
a modified ISO container being used for a temporary school
classroom (housing). As such, one can understand how a zoning
administrator may confuse a federally sanctioned definition when
a state such as Vermont appears to have no need for a definition
of an ISO container in the Vermont State Statutes and has not for
the several decades of their use. The closest Vermont State
Statutes appear to have in defining an ISO container, which Cornell
Law legally defines as “half of a trailer” (Exhibit 3) is that of a
“storage trailer” (23 V.S.A. § 4, 61):
          (61) “Storage trailer” means any regularly
          manufactured box type trailer that has been
          removed from normal over-the-highway service and
          is used solely for the storage of commodities at a
          fixed site for extended periods of time. When a
          storage trailer is moved over the public highways, it
          shall not contain cargo weighing more than 2,000
          pounds and shall be properly equipped, in good
          mechanical condition, and inspectable under the
          provisions of section 1222 of this title, except that
          storage trailers need not display an inspection
          sticker.”
This, again, places jurisdiction clearly within the Department of
Transportation for the State of Vermont. Is an ISO Container not
the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, so long as it
remains unaltered and able to be used for transportation of goods?

                                  5
Statement of Questions (filed on Aug. 25, 2023).
          Questions 2 and 3 are extremely lengthy and filled with factual assertions. The Court
interprets these questions to effectively ask whether federal and/or state law addressing various
freight and shipping containers preempts the local regulation of the Storage Container. The
definitions cited are not relevant in the pending action. First, 29 C.F.R. § 1918.2 addresses the
federal Department of Labor’s health and safety regulations related to longshoring. Second, 79
C.F.R. § 171.8 addresses federal Department of Transportation regulations related to the
shipping of hazardous materials. Third, 49 U.S.C. § 5901 sets forth definitions related to the
transportation of various cargo in interstate commerce. Fourth, in Question 3, 23 V.S.A. § 4(61)
addresses trailers holding commodities or cargo that will at some point be shipped to another
location.
          The Storage Container is not used in any of these contexts. Appellants classify their use
of the Storage Container as for storage of property on site. Appellants point to no law that would
preempt local zoning. Thus, these federal laws are irrelevant in the context of this zoning appeal.
Question 2 and 3 are therefore, DISMISSED because they fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted by the Court and the Town’s motion to strike is MOOT.
   III.      Question 4
          Question 4 asks:
                 4. We do, however, recognize that the Zoning Board for a Town does
                 have authority over parking. Fortunately, the parking for our storage
                 trailer or ISO container in question was approved by the
                 Developmental Review Board for the Town of Waitsfield in 2018
                 (Exhibit 4). Would this not be approval by the town of Waitsfield for
                 the ISO Container as recognized as a “trailer” under the definitions
                 of Cornel[l] Law and the Department of Transportation?
Statement of Questions (filed Aug. 25, 2023).
          The Court interprets the thrust of the Question to ask whether there was approval from
the Town DRB in 2018 that would authorize the Storage Container and/or its location at the
property. This is relevant to the issues before the Court in this NOV appeal such that, to the
extent that the Town moves to dismiss Question 4, that motion is DENIED.

                                                  6
          The Question as written, however, is unclear and contains narrative information and
argument that is inappropriate for a Statement of Questions. The Court therefore GRANTS the
Town’s motion to clarify Question 4. The Spauldings are ordered to file a clarified Question 4
addressing this narrow issue, in conformance with the Court’s below directive.3
    IV.       Question 5
                  5. In Pierce Subdivision Application (In re Pierce Subdivision
                  Application, 965 A.2d 468, 2008 V.T. 100 (Vt. 2008)), the decision
                  essentially states when interpreting the language of a zoning
                  ordinance we are bound by the plain meaning of the words. And
                  since the Zoning ordinance allegedly in violation fails to include ISO
                  Containers as a “structure” despite its listing of “Structures”, would
                  this legal principle not render this overzealous enforcement moot?
                  Pursuant to Section 7.02 of the Zoning Bylaws, a “structure” is
                  defined as “An assembly of materials for occupancy or use,
                  including but not limited to a building, a manufactured, mobile
                  home or trailer, sign, storage shelter, wall or fence, except a wall
                  or fence on an operating farm.” Does this definition not refer to
                  Trailer “homes”, and Manufactured “homes”, and have absolutely
                  no reference therein to an ISO Container as a structure by this
                  definition? Especially given the use of the comma in this Bylaw?
                  This is an established issue in law: (Victor, D. (2017). Lack of Oxford
                  comma could cost Maine company millions in overtime dispute.
                  The New York Times. & O'CONNOR v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69
                  (1st Cir. 2017).
Statement of Questions (filed on Aug. 25, 2023).
          Again, Question 5 contains significant narrative and argument that is inappropriate for a
Statement of Questions. The Court does, however, understand that the Question seeks to
challenge whether the Storage Container constitutes a “structure” under the relevant zoning
bylaws. As written, however, the Question is not clear. The Town argues that the Question can
be answered in its favor at this time such that it should be dismissed. While the Town may
ultimately prevail on this issue, a motion for summary judgment on the Question is required. The
motion to dismiss Question 5 is DENIED. The Town’s motion to clarify Question 5 is GRANTED.

          3
         Because the Court grants the Town’s motion to clarify, and due to the Court’s directive on filing clarified
Questions, the Town’s motion to strike is MOOT.

                                                         7
The Spauldings are ordered to file a clarified Question 5 in conformance with the Court’s below
directive.
   V.        Question 6
        Question 6 asks:
                6. Under the principle that Zoning Ordinances and Bylaws must
                adhere to rational standards for the enforcement of Welfare,
                Health, Safety ((Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct.
                358, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905) & Thomas Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U.S.
                526, 37 S. Ct. 190, 61 L. Ed. 472 (1917)).
                At the “appeal trial” the Developmental Review Board (DRB) for the
                Town of Waitsfield was given ample opportunity to cite such
                concerns and violations of welfare, health, and safety; and having
                repeatedly failed to do so, the Zoning Administrator proceeded to
                fabricate a site visit with a state Fire Marshall. We have evidence
                that NO Site visit ever occurred as the Town of Waitsfield Zoning
                Administrator refused to conduct one at our invitation (EXHIBIT 5).
                Furthermore, there are NO violations of Fire Codes on-site as we
                DID have a State Fire Marshall on-site at our own invitation. Brice
                Simon provided evidence directly for the DRB and the Town of
                Waitsfield through use of screen sharing his personal computer
                during the entire DRB meeting and attempted to include the
                concern about “sight lines”. No evidence of the requirements for
                sight lines was included, and no evidence of any measurements
                being taken was included in this testimony. Sight lines according to
                (EXHIBIT 6) require 12 feet from the edge of the road to the
                potentially limiting object. Would not the 13 feet of clearance
                between the road and the ISO container be sufficient for concerns
                of Sight Lines? Does having no understanding of the importance of
                justifying a zoning bylaw or ordinance under the inclusion of
                welfare, health, and safety demonstrates the DRB’s desire to harm
                our financial wellbeing and attempt to drive us from our property
                though the intent of bankruptcy by levying an excessive fine? Does
                Brice Simon’s unprecedented access to the DRB’s presentation and
                testimony at the hearing indicate collusion with the Town of
                Waitsfield to cause us harm?
Statement of Questions (filed on Aug. 25, 2023).
        The Court interprets this Question to present two issues. First, it challenges actions taken
before the DRB. Second, it challenges the Bylaws’ constitutionality.

                                                 8
        We first address the aspects of this Question that address actions before the DRB. Again,
this Court is one of limited jurisdiction. 4 V.S.A. § 34. Further, with limited exceptions not
relevant here, we review appeals de novo. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). As such, we hear the case “as
though no action whatever has been held prior thereto.” Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt.
9, 11 (1989). Therefore, we generally do not consider the underlying decision of, or proceedings
before, the municipal panel below, “rather, we review the application anew as to the specific
issues raised in the statement of questions.” In re Whiteyville Props. LLC, No. 179-12-11 Vtec,
slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Dec. 13, 2012) (Durkin, J.). We are further limited “to
consideration of the matters properly warned as before the local board.” In re Maple Tree Place,
156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991).          Because of this Court’s de novo trial process, allegations of
decisionmaker bias or improper procedure on the part of the municipal panel are outside the
scope of our review. In re JLD Props. of St. Albans, LLC, 2011 VT 87, ¶ 10, 190 Vt. 259. Simply put,
questions related to the procedures before the municipal panel when it was considering the
application are outside the scope of this Court’s de novo review and must be dismissed. This is
because, with limited exceptions that do not appear relevant here based on the Questions
presented, procedural missteps before the municipal panel can be corrected before the Court.
        To the extent that Question 6 seeks to challenge the sufficiency of evidence before the
DRB and/or the procedure before the DRB, such matters are not relevant to the Court’s de novo
review. The Town’s motion to dismiss this aspect of Question 6 is GRANTED.
        To the extent that Question 6 seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Bylaws’
setback requirements as applied to the Spauldings, such an issue would be within the jurisdiction
of this Court.4 The Question as written, however, is not clear. As such, the Court GRANTS the
Town’s motion to clarify and directs the Spauldings to file an amended Question 6 on this limited
issue in conformance with the Court’s below directive.

        4
          The Court notes that it lacks jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges, which are made on
its own, without appealing a specific zoning decision. 24 V.S.A. § 472(b); see e.g. Hinsdale v. Vill. of Essex
Junction, 153 Vt. 618, 627 (1990); Littlefield v. Town of Colchester, 150 Vt. 249, 250 (1988). Thus, to the
extent that the Spauldings seek to generally challenge the setback requirements as unconstitutional, such
a challenge would not be proper in this Court.

                                                      9
   VI.      Question 7
         Question 7 asks:
                7. We have also taken issue with the failure to follow proper
                procedure for the Town of Waitsfield to enforce the alleged
                violation. Why was due process as specified by Vermont Land Use
                Rules of Procedure and Ethics Manual Section III: Legal
                Requirements (p. 2) not followed? Can the Developmental Review
                Board refuse a site visit when one is requested? Can the
                Developmental Review Board refuse to provide a list of interested
                parties when sent a request relating to a court proceeding as the
                result of their judgement? Can the Zoning Administrator refuse to
                reissue and alter approved DRB site plans and permits, to add their
                own personal issue with a storage unit? If this is a “structure”, then
                is not a variance an appropriate mechanism for this situation? And
                can the Select Board for the Town of Waitsfield not direct or rather
                grant such a variance? If so, why then did the Select Board refuse
                to grant this variance and instead sided with the violations of the
                Zoning Administrator and the DRB members? Why does the Town
                of Waitsfield sporadically cite some ISO containers and not others?
                Why is this Bylaw not enforced throughout the town equally by the
                Town of Waitsfield?
Statement of Question (filed on Aug. 25, 2023).
         Question 7 contains many sub-questions addressing different issues. First, to the extent
that the Question seeks to challenge the procedure before the DRB, for the reasons set forth
above, those issues are outside the scope of the Court’s de novo review and must be dismissed.
Second, to the extent that the Question addresses whether the Spauldings could be granted a
variance, such an issue is similarly outside the scope of the present appeal because there is no
application for variance before this Court. See e.g., In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990) (“The
reach of the superior court in zoning appeals is as broad as the powers of the [appropriate
municipal panel], but it is not broader.”). The Town’s motion to dismiss these issues is GRANTED.
         Finally, to the extent that this Question seeks to address whether the Town has selectively
enforced its regulations relative to storage containers, such an issue would be proper in this
Court. Even so, as written the Question is unclear. The Town’s motion to clarify this discrete

                                                 10
aspect of Question 7 is GRANTED and the Spauldings are directed to file an amended Question 7
on this narrow issue in conformance with the Court’s below directive.5
    VII.        Question 8
    Question 8 asks:
                   8. Does a Developmental Review Board not require a complaint to
                   enforce a zoning action? Under Vermont State Statutes, where the
                   zoning bylaws limits fines to $50/day (24 V.S.A. § 3028), is it not a
                   violation of law to attempt to enforce a $200/day fine? If, there is
                   a violation by the town of Waitsfield in enforcing an ordinance that
                   does not define an ISO Container as a “Structure”, and / or the fine
                   of $200 dollars per day are found to beyond the scope of the Zoning
                   Administrator’s duties, then does this overreach of enforcement
                   not constitution a breach of our Property Rights under the Federal
                   and State Constitutions and our right to property?
Statement of Questions (filed on Aug. 25, 2023).
           This Question addresses the process by which the Town has pursued enforcement and
the amount of the potential daily fine for the violation. First, Question 8 asks whether the DRB
needed to file a complaint to enforce a zoning violation. The process for pursuing enforcement
of a zoning violation is set out by statute in 24 V.S.A. §§ 4451 and 4452. The filing of a complaint
is not required. Second, Question 8 cites to 24 V.S.A. § 3028 for a $50 maximum per day fine.
Section 3028 is not applicable in this case. This matter has been brought pursuant to 25 V.S.A.
Chapter 117. See DRB Decision (filed on June 2, 2023) (citing provisions of Chapter 117 regarding
appeal processes).6 Zoning violations brought pursuant to Chapter 117 carry a maximum daily
fine of $200 per day. 24 V.S.A. § 4451.
           Thus, 24 V.S.A. § 3028 is irrelevant in the context of the pending appeal. Question 8 is,
therefore, DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this
Court.

           55
             Because the Court grants the Town’s motion to clarify, and due to the Court’s directive on filing
clarified Questions, the Town’s motion to strike is MOOT.
          6
            The Town cites to the Waitsfield Zoning Bylaws in its motion, but did not provide a copy of the bylaws as
an exhibit to its motion, nor have they been filed with the Court in another manner.

                                                         11
    VIII.    Question 9
        Due to the length of Question 9, the Court will not restate it here. Question 9 contains
significant background information and argument regarding the laying out of Center Fayston
Road and the Town’s rights therein and operation thereof. To the extent that this Question seeks
adjudication of any of those issues, that is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and that aspect
of Question 9 is DISMISSED. In re Woodstock Cmty. Tr. & Hous. Vt. PRD, 2012 VT 87, ¶ 40, 192
Vt. 474 (“[T]he Environmental Division does not have jurisdiction to determine private property
rights.”).
        The Town asserts that the Question could be restated to address the issue of whether
Center Fayston Road is a “road” relative to the setback. The Court struggles to find such an
interpretation of Question 9. There is an aspect of Question 9 that seems to address whether
the setback should be imposed at the Property, but as written it is unclear. To the extent that
this Question seeks to address such an issue, the Spauldings are directed to file a clarified
Question 9 addressing this issue alone in conformance with the Court’s below directive.
                                             Conclusion
        For the forgoing reasons, the Town’s motion to dismiss Questions 1 through 3, aspects of
6 that address procedure before the DRB and evidence presented thereto, aspects of 7 that
address procedure before the DRB and whether the Spauldings could or should be granted a
variance, 8, and aspects of 9 that address the Town’s rights in Center Fayston Road and operation
thereof, is GRANTED. The Town’s motion to clarify Questions 4, 5, aspects of 6 that address the
constitutionally of the Town’s setback requirements as applied to the Spaudlings, 7, as it relates
to selective enforcement by the Town, and the remaining aspects of Question 9 is GRANTED.
        The Court ORDERS the Spauldings to file a revised Statement of Questions (revised SOQ)
for Questions 4, 5, 8 and parts of 6, 7 and 9 addressing the discrete issues not dismissed above.
The revised SOQ must be filed on or before January 31, 2024.
        In drafting the revised SOQ, the Court reminds the Spauldings that their revised Questions
are to be a “short, concise and plain statement.” Northeast Materials Grp., No. 143-10-12 Vtec,
slip op. at 3 (May 9, 2013) (Walsh, J.) (citing V.R.C.P. 8(a)). This means that their revised Questions
should be free of narrative background or argument and only address the discrete questions that

                                                  12
remain before the Court. The Court also Orders that the Spauldings refrain from attaching
exhibits to the revised SOQ. The use of exhibits is limited to motion practice and trial. This is
when the Court will take evidence related to the revised SOQ.
       Lastly, the Town’s motion to strike is MOOT.
Electronically signed January 18, 2024 in Burlington, Vermont pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(D).

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge
Superior Court, Environmental Division

                                               13