Cote Hill Road Subdivision Permit Determination - Decision on Motion

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 02/19/25
Environmental Division

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division Docket No. 24-ENV-00104
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Cote Hill Road Subdivision Permit Determination
ENTRY ORDER
Title: Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion: 1)
Filer: Tyler Mumley
Filed Date: January 6, 2025
No response filed.
The motion is GRANTED.
This is an appeal by Hannah Farda of a decision of the Town of Morrisville (Town)

Development Review Board (DRB) denying her appeal of a minor subdivision permit issued by the
Town Zoning Administrator to Andrea and Tyler Mumley for a two-lot subdivision of property
located at 336 Cote Hill Road, Morrisville, Vermont (the Property). Presently before the Court is Mr.

Mumley's motion to dismiss Ms. Farda's appeal pursuant to Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure
(V.R.C.P.) Rule 12(b)(6) and, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to V.R.C.P.
12(c). Ms. Farda has not responded to the motion.
In reviewing the motion and filings, the Court also analyzed our subject matter jurisdiction
over the appeal. This Court has an "independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter

jurisdiction exists" and must consider this issue on our own. See
No. 133-6-08 Vtec, slip op. at 8 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. May 20, 2009) (Durkin, J.) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514) (2006)). Further, the Court is required to dismiss an action sua sponte

"[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
subject matter..." V.R.C.P. 12(h).
The scope of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and our review is confined to those issues
that the municipal panel below addressed or had the authority to address when considering the

application before the Court. See 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 zoning board of adjustment or a planning

Page 1 of 3
commission, but it is not broader.”). Thus, the scope of this Court’s review is the application for a
two-lot subdivision before us. See N. Vermont Rentals, LLC Extension, No. 5-1-17 Vtec, slip op. at
4 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Nov. 2, 2017) (Walsh, J.) (“We hear appeals from permit application
decisions de novo, sitting in the place of the decision-making body below . . . and determine whether
the application should be approved.”).
This jurisdictional limitation is related to the prohibition on courts issuing advisory opinions.
“Courts are not authorized to issue advisory opinions because they exceed the constitutional mandate
to decide only actual cases and controversies.” In re Snowstone, LLC Stormwater Discharge
Authorization, 2021 VT 36, ¶ 28. As such, the issues presented on appeal “must be a necessary part
of the final disposition of the case to which it pertains.” Baker v. Town of Goshen, 169 Vt. 145,
151—52 (1999) (citing Wood v. Wood, 135 Vt. 119, 121 (1971)).
Presently before the Court is an appeal of an application for a two-lot subdivision of the
Property. The application does not request approval for any construction of any development on
either of the lots, nor does it request approval for the use of any such future development on the lots.
Ms. Farda asserts through her Statement of Questions that the Mumleys intend to construct a duplex
on one of the lots and rent the units to traveling healthcare workers and/or as a short-term rental. 1
She asserts that this use is incompatible with the purpose statement of the HOME Act. For both
reasons, she asserts the subdivision permit must be denied. Even assuming each of these allegations
are true for the purposes of the pending motion, they are beyond the scope of this subdivision
application, and therefore, outside the scope of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in the pending
appeal. There is no application for a duplex before the Court nor is there an application to use such
a future duplex for short-term rental.
Before the Court is an application for a two-lot minor subdivision. Construction or use of
any construction is not before the Court. The Court is limited in its jurisdiction to consider subdividing
the Property and nothing more. The Zoning Administrator and DRB could not have issued a decision
as to the potential propriety of the use of any future development not yet proposed, nor can this Court
on appeal. The present appeal asks this Court to deny the permit application based on the use of a
not-yet proposed duplex. This is not within scope of the application before the Court. The appeal
therefore poses issues outside the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction and is the appeal must be
DISMISSED.

1 Ms. Farda’s Statement of Questions contains no Question. Instead, it is a narrative paragraph that generally
describes her concerns with the Mumley’s application. Mr. Mumley strongly disputes these assertions in his motion.

Page 2 of 3
Because we dismiss this appeal on jurisdictional grounds, Mr. Mumley’s motion to dismiss or
for judgment on the pleadings is MOOT.
This concludes the matter before the Court. A Judgment Order accompanies this Entry
Order.
Electronically signed this 19th day of February 2025 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(D).

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge
Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division

Page 3 of 3