Amended Zoning Permit 2025-75 - Decision on Motions

Page 1 of 12
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT 	ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
Docket No. 26-ENV-00054
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Amended Zoning Permit 2025-75 	DECISION ON MOTIONS
Chelsye and Trevor Brooks (Appellants) appeal the Town of Richmond (Town) Development
Review Board (DRB)’s denial of their appeal of Amended Zoning Permit 2025-75. That permit relates
to specific changes to a driveway previously authorized under Zoning Permit 2024-02 for property
located at 1330 Jericho Road, Richmond, Vermont (the Property). In this matter, Appellants appear
pro se. 	Applicant Jay McCormack (Applicant) is represented by Attorneys Rachel Seelig, Esq.,
Alexander Arroyo, Esq., and Geoffrey Hand, Esq. Interested parties Candice and Edwin Thornton
appear pro se. The Town is represented by Attorneys David Rugh, Esq. and Zachary Handelman,
Esq.
An understanding of the background of this appeal and other related permits is necessary to
put the pending motions into context. The Town Zoning Administrative Officer (ZAO) approved
Applicant’s original driveway permit on January 17, 2024 (the Original Driveway Permit). That permit
application included a site plan depicting the location of the driveway relative to neighboring
properties, including Appellants’. The plan noted the elevation and width of the driveway at various
points and included the location of several proposed culverts. The Original Driveway Permit was not
appealed. 	In December 2025, Applicant applied for amendments to the Original Driveway Permit.
The amendments included: 1) the addition of four culverts; 2) the removal of one culvert; 3) the
addition of two turnaround areas; 4) reducing the overall length of the driveway, and 5) narrowing the
driveway from its originally planned 24-foot width at various points along its length. The Town ZAO
conditionally approved the amended zoning permit (the Amended Permit) on February 23, 2026. The
only condition of approval required was that Applicant resubmit a revised driveway plan showing the
forebay at the bottom of the driveway outside the “no-build zone” as defined by the Town of
Richmond Zoning Regulations (the Regulations) in the Property’s zoning district. Applicant’s Ex. 2,
p. 3. 	Appellants timely appealed to the Amended Permit to the DRB, which verbally denied their

Page 2 of 12
appeal on April 8, 2026, followed by a written decision issued May 8, 2026. Appellants timely appealed
the DRB’s decision to this Court.
Statement of Questions
Appellants’ Statement of Questions lists 9 Questions, with the majority containing multiple
subparts. See Statement of Questions (filed June 26, 2026). Due to the length of the Questions, the
Court does not reproduce them in their entirety here. 	Appellants ask the Court to adjudicate
compliance with various provisions of the Regulations, including:
1) § 3.2.4(e), which asks about the “No Build Zone” in the context of
dimensional limitations on structures in the relevant zoning district;
2) § 4.1 – Compliance with Public Works Specifications;
3) § 5.2.1(c), requiring site plans filed with zoning applications to
include certain information;
4) 	§ 1.2, requiring issuance of a zoning permit for qualifying land
development unless regulated by 24 V.S.A. § 4413;
5) 	§ 	5.3.3, 	relating 	to 	material 	misrepresentations 	in 	zoning
applications;
6) 	§ 	5.3.4 	– 	Amendments 	to 	Permits 	Already 	Issued 	by 	the
Administrative Officer;
7) § 2.5.2 – Non-Developable Portions of a Lot;
8) § 6.11 – Steep Slopes; and
9) § 6.2 – Driveway Requirements
Id.
Discussion
Presently before the Court are Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss and Appellants’ Motion to Stay
and Motion to Amend Motion to Stay. We address Applicant’s motion first.
1. 	Motion to Dismiss
Applicant’s motion is made pursuant to both V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1)
governs motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. When reviewing such a motion,
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. Standing is a
“necessary component to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.” Bischoff v. Bletz, 2008 VT 16, ¶
15, 183 Vt. 235. V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. 	Such motions are, notably, “disfavored” and “rarely granted.” 	Colby v.
Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, ¶ 5. 	A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may not be granted “unless it is beyond

Page 3 of 12
doubt that there are no facts or circumstances that would entitle the nonmoving party to relief.” Id.
(internal quotation and citation omitted). In evaluating a motion under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), we take the
factual allegations asserted by the nonmovant as true, keeping in mind that the purpose of
a V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion is to test the law of the claim, not the facts that might support it. Richards
v. Town of Norwich, 169 Vt. 44, 48–49 (1999); Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 173 Vt. 390, 395
(2002). 	A Statement of Questions “is subject to a motion to clarify or dismiss some or all of the
questions.” V.R.E.C.P. 5(f).
24 V.S.A. § 4472(a) provides that an appeal represents “the exclusive remedy of an interested
person with respect to any decision or act taken, or any failure to act, under [Chapter 117 of Title 24]
or with respect to any one or more of the provisions of any plan or bylaw . . . .” 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a).
“In considering permit appeals, the Environmental Division ‘hold[s] a de novo hearing on those issues
that have been appealed’ in which it “appl[ies] the substantive standards that were applicable before
the tribunal appealed from.” 	In re Lake Bomoseen Ass’n., 2025 VT 59, ¶ 14 (quoting 10 V.S.A. §
8504(h)). 	Importantly, in the absence of a timely appeal, decisions of the administrative officer or
appropriate municipal panel become final. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d). The Vermont Supreme Court has
repeatedly affirmed that the language of § 4472(d) evinces a clear “legislative intent ‘to prevent any
kind of collateral attack on a zoning decision that has not been properly appealed through the
mechanisms provided by the municipal planning and zoning statutes.’” 	In re Hopkins Cert. of
Compliance, 2020 VT 47, ¶ 8 (quoting City of S. Burlington v. Dep’t of Corr., 171 Vt. 587, 588–89
(2000) (mem.) (emphasis in original). This is true even when the original decision was ultra vires, and
thus void ab initio. Id. at ¶ 10.
Applicant moves to dismiss Appellants’ appeal in its entirety, or in the alternative, substantially
narrow the scope of their Statement of Questions by dismissing or clarifying aspects of the Questions.
Applicant argues that most, if not all of Appellants’ Questions represent collateral attacks on the
Original Driveway Permit and are barred by 24 V.S.A. § 4472. Applicant contends that this Court’s
review should be limited to the specific changes in the application implicated by the Amended Permit.
Relatedly, he argues that changes to certain features of the driveway, such as culverts, do not reopen
the DRB’s original approval of those features. Put another way, Applicant contends that his request
for the addition of culverts does not reopen the entire question of the adequacy of the driveway’s
drainage for Appellants to contest.

Page 4 of 12
A. Finality: Question 5, Questions 3a, 3b, 3d and Questions 6b, 6c, 6d, 6f, and 6g
Appellants respond that the application for the Amended Permit included an updated
Driveway Plan and Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan, both of which contained
information not provided in the Site Plan accompanying the Original Driveway Permit or its
application 	The updated plans include additional information such as a limit of disturbance and
current clearing limits. 	In Appellants’ view, the inclusion of this information on the permit
amendment application essentially constitutes a new request for additional development not
previously approved by the DRB. As such, Appellants argue they should be able to pose Questions
to this Court touching on issues beyond the five changes outlined by the DRB in their approval of the
Amended Permit and contained in Applicant’s application.
In a de novo appeal, this Court reviews the decision below “as though no action whatever had
been held prior thereto.” Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Board, 151 Vt. 9, 11. 	At the same time, the
Vermont Supreme Court has recognized that the decision appealed below limits the scope of the
issues that may be appealed to this Court. Hopkins, 2020 VT 47, ¶ 16. While we are not bound by a
municipal panel’s interpretation of zoning regulations, our jurisdiction is “as broad as the powers of a
zoning board of adjustment or a planning commission, but it is not broader.” In re Torres, 154 Vt.
233, 235.
Here, no party disputes that Original Driveway Permit was not appealed and has since become
final and binding. 	Appellants challenge the Town’s denial of their appeal of the Amended Permit.
The DRB’s written decision reflects the DRB’s understanding that the issues before it in assessing the
application were limited in scope to the five amendments to the Original Driveway Permit only. See
Ex. A (the amendment application); Richmond DRB Denial of Notice of Appeal 2026-01, filed June
5, 2026, p. 4.
The DRB approved the initial application for the driveway based on the site plan then-
submitted as Appellants’ Exhibit A.1 This map did not include clearing limits or limits of disturbance
as depicted in the site plan submitted in connection with the amendment application. Ex. 2, p. 1–2.
1 Review of the record in this case shows two exhibits submitted as “Exhibit A”—an “Amended Driveway Permit
Application,” submitted by Applicant on 8/20/26, and an “Original Permit Plan” submitted by Appellants on July 29,
2026. We refer to the latter here. Further, it appears that Applicant has submitted two versions of the amended permit
application with different materials—one with 33 pages, labelled Exhibit 2, submitted on 7/15/26, and the aforementioned
Exhibit A, with 29 pages, filed on August 20. Because the applications substantially overlap and both include the updated
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan and updated Driveway Plans which are relevant to our analysis, we refer
to Exhibit 2 to avoid confusion.

Page 5 of 12
When the DRB’s approval of the Original Driveway permit was not appealed, the driveway as
permitted became final in every respect, even if approved in error. Hopkins, 2020 VT 47, ¶ 16. Put
another way, if Applicant had never returned to the DRB to seek permit amendments, he would have
had approval to construct the driveway based on the initial application alone. 	This would include
associated clearing limits and limits of disturbance, even if not pictured on the original site plan. This
Court makes no determination about whether Applicant would have been fully compliant with the
Regulations in doing so; however, the doctrine of finality compels such a harsh interpretation. Levy
v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 152 Vt. 139, 142 564 (1989) (“[T]here should, in
fairness, come a time when the decisions of an administrative officer become final so that a person
may proceed with assurance instead of peril.” (quotation omitted)).
Here, the permit amendment application expressly stated it related to five listed changes. It
did not seek review or approval of any previously permitted development. Indeed, that would make
little sense given the fact that non-amended aspects of the development had final zoning approval.
The amendment application and the decision on appeal make clear that jurisdiction was and is
narrowly limited to review of those five changes.2 The Court concludes that our jurisdiction, as well
as the DRB’s below, does not extend to any aspect of the driveway beyond culverts, the driveway’s
length and width, and the installation of turnaround areas as identified in the amendment application.3
These jurisdictional limitations have important implications for the Questions that Appellants
may permissibly pose to this Court. Given the above analysis, the Court concludes that the additional
information provided with a permit amendment application on an Erosion Prevention and Sediment
Control Plan and an updated Driveway Plan is not a “material inaccurac[y] or misrepresentation[]” as
those terms are used in Regulations § 5.3.3(a). Appellants do not contend the information (such as
limits of disturbance and clearing limits) shown on the updated documents for Amended Permit
represent a change from information provided in the previous plan. 	Rather, they object to the
provision of this information for the first time at this stage. Even if this qualified as misrepresentation,
2 In fact, the DRB goes so far as to offer an alternative avenue for Appellants to contest broader aspects of the
driveway, stating that “[t]o the extent there are any issues with the project as constructed in relation to the approval given
in the permit as amended, that matter can be taken in connection with the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.”
Denial of Notice of Appeal 2026-01, p. 4. Appellants have since appealed the relevant Certificate of Occupancy in Docket
26-ENV-00082.
3 The fact that Appellants have raised issues outside the scope of their Statement of Questions has no bearing
on the subject matter of this appeal in this context. Hopkins, 2020 VT 47, ¶ 15 (“[T]he fact that a statement of questions
limits the issues to be heard on appeal does not mean that issues beyond the scope of an appeal are drawn within a court's
jurisdiction through their inclusion in a statement of questions.”)

Page 6 of 12
that issue was not before the DRB under the amendment application and thus is not before this Court.
Thus, the assertion remains barred by § 4472. For these reasons, Question 5 and Questions 3a, 3b,
3d and Questions 6b, 6c, 6d, 6f, and 6g must be DISMISSED.
B. 	Scope of Amendments: Question 1, Question 2, Question 7, Question 8
To be clear, Appellants may permissibly pose Questions relating to the amended driveway
features’ compliance with the Regulations. 	As noted, these include amended length and width,
installation and removal of the culverts, and installation of the turnaround areas. 	They may not,
however, raise issues outside the narrow scope of whether these changes comply with the Regulations
because all other aspects of the driveway are unappealed and final. For example, installation of the
culverts does not reopen the entire question of Applicant’s compliance with every provision in the
Regulations regarding stormwater management. With this scope of review in mind, the Court analyzes
the remaining Questions before the Court.
a. 	Question 1
Question 1 asks about the driveway’s compliance with Regulations § 3.2.4(e), which
demarcates a “No Build Zone” for construction activity within 5 feet of a lot line.4 It does not ask
about the amendments’ compliance with other subparts contained in § 3.2.4. Because this Question
asks about the driveway as a whole rather than the limited amendments at issue in this appeal, it is
foreclosed by 24 V.S.A. § 4472. 	Further, although the Town ZAO’s approval letter for Amended
Permit includes a condition mandating the Applicant submit a revised plan showing the driveway’s
forebay outside the “No Build Zone,” the application sought no amendment to the forebay as
approved by the Original Driveway Permit. The requirement that Applicant submit a plan depicting
this feature does not reopen the feature’s approval to Appellants’ present attack. This is also the case
with the aspect of Appellants’ Question 1 that deals with underground utility installations. 5 	The
application on appeal does not seek approval for underground utilities. Thus, the issue is not part of
this appeal. 	As such, Question 1 lies outside the scope of this appeal and must be DISMISSED.
4 The Court construes Appellants’ mentions of the “proposed development” as referring to the driveway project
as a whole, as opposed to their other references to “the amended permit application and associated plans . . . .” Statement
of Questions at 1.
5 Appellants assert that issues related to underground utilities are before the Court because of alleged statements
that occurred at an in-person meeting with the ZAO. Opposition, p. 2. Putting aside whether those statements occurred
and their context, they do not change the fact that the application before the Court does not seek approval of such
installation, nor does the DRB’s decision on appeal approve underground utilities.

Page 7 of 12
b. 	Question 2
Question 2 asks broadly about the amended permit’s compliance with Regulations § 4.1, which
mandates compliance with all Town Public Works Department specifications. 	This issue was
foreclosed by the approval of the Original Driveway Permit, lies outside the scope of the appeal, and
must be DISMISSED.
c. 	Question 7
Question 7 asks about the Amended Permit’s compliance with Regulations § 2.5.2, which
defines what constitutes land capable of supporting development on lots exceeding 10,000 square feet.
What constitutes land that is capable or incapable of supporting development on the Property was
determined by the Original Driveway Permit. 	Thus, this issue is outside the scope of this appeal.
Question 7 is therefore DISMISSED.
d. 	Question 8
Question 8 asks about the driveway and the Amended Permit’s compliance with Regulations §
6.11, which requires the submission of engineering plans for any proposed construction occurring on
land with a slope greater than 20%. The driveway’s slope as a whole was approved by the Original
Driveway Permit. 	Applicant’s first application, submitted as Exhibit 1, contains plans showing the
driveway’s profile, including slope. 	The exhibit also contains a letter from the former Town ZAO
acknowledging receipt of the plans and requesting the Applicant submit a signed letter from the
responsible engineer or contractor attesting to their accuracy after the work is completed. Applicant’s
Exhibit 1, p. 3. 	Thus, the issue of slope was decided by the Original Driveway Permit and has
necessarily has become final and lies outside the scope of this appeal. While aspects of the Question
address the features at issue in the amendment application, no party asserts that the amended features
alter the permitted slope. Thus, there is no assertion that the amended features do not comply with
Regulations § 6.11, and this Question must be DISMISSED.
C. 	Advisory Opinion: Question 4
a. 	Question 4
This Question asks whether a variety of alleged activities (e.g., excavation, grading, filling,
clearing) related to “homesite preparation” meet the definition of “Land Development” and therefore
require a zoning permit under Regulations § 1.2. This application does not seek approval for any of
these alleged activities. As such, this question seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. “Advisory
opinions are those that have no conclusive, legal effect . . . Courts are not authorized to issue advisory

Page 8 of 12
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, 214
Vt. 587. 	This appeal concerns Applicant’s amendments to the Original Driveway Permit. 	These
amendments exclusively relate to the driveway, not to any proposed or existing structure or the
surrounding area. 	Thus, the question of whether Applicant’s alleged activities at the “homesite”
constitute land development under § 1.2 has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal and is an
advisory opinion. 	Therefore, this Question must be DISMISSED.
D. Remaining Questions: Amended Questions 3c, 3e, 6a, 6e, and 9
This Court’s precedent establishes that we may construe Questions in a party’s Statement of
Questions to remove ambiguity. In re Capitol Plaza 2-Lot Subdivision, Nos. 3-1-19 Vtec, 4-1-19 Vtec,
slip op. at 8 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 4, 2020) (Walsh, J.). In this case, a number of Appellants’
Questions raise some issues that lie within the scope of this appeal, and others that do not. For the
sake of clarity, the Court construes these Questions to remove issues that lie outside the scope of this
appeal.
a. 	Amended Questions 3c and 3e
Question 3, in relevant part, asks about the permit amendment application’s compliance with
Regulations § 5.2.1(c)(iv) and (v).6 	These subsections mandate that a site plan contain enough
information about a parcel’s dimensions (or any other information the ZAO requires) to ascertain
whether application complies with various requirements of the Regulations.
Specifically, § 5.2.1 (c)(iv) asks whether a site plan has provided enough information related to
a parcel’s dimensions to allow the ZAO to determine whether the relevant application complies with
the Regulations. Because the driveway’s dimensions, as amended, were part of the permit amendment
application, Appellants may raise this issue. Subsection (c)(v) asks whether a site plan has provided
any other information that may be required by the ZAO to determine whether the relevant application
complies with the Regulations. Because the Court does not yet know the full extent of information
the parties will present that may relate to the permit amendment application, Appellants may raise this
issue. 	As 	currently 	framed, 	however, 	Appellants’ 	Questions 	3c 	and 	3e 	are 	impermissibly
argumentative. In re Conlon CU Permit, No. 2-1-12 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div.
Aug. 30, 2012) (Durkin, J.) (“[F]actual and legal information that goes beyond identifying the
6 Notably, this Question can be distinguished from Question 1 because it asks about the amended permit, rather
than the driveway as a whole.

Page 9 of 12
Questions and crosses over into arguing the merits of the Questions is misplaced in a Statement of
Questions.”) As such, the Court reframes these Questions to state:
Does the amended permit application comply with Regulations § 5.2.1(c)(iv) and (v)
based on: 1) the application’s representation of the amendments as compliant with §
3.2.4(e), and 2) based on the application’s representation that it contains sufficient
information 	for 	the 	Administrative 	Officer 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	permit
amendments comply with the Regulations?
Thus, Applicant’s motion to dismiss Questions 3c and 3e is DENIED. These Questions will remain
before the Court as restated herein.
b. 	Amended Questions 6a and 6e
Although aspects of Question 6, broadly, are dismissed as set forth above pursuant to the
doctrine of finality, the portions set forth in subparts 6a and 6e relate to the amended features at issue
in Amended Permit and are therefore within this Court’s jurisdiction. As written, however, they are
not appropriately tailored to the Court’s jurisdiction as set forth herein. Therefore, the Court reframes
this Question to ask:
Does the amended permit application comply with Regulations § 5.3.4’s directive to
limit the scope of changes in a permit amendment based on the application’s
representations of the driveway’s dimensions and the installed and removed culverts?7
Thus, Applicant’s motion to dismiss Questions 6a and 6e is DENIED. These Questions will remain
before the Court as restated.
c. 	Amended Question 9
Although this Question raises Regulations § 6.2.1, which relates to driveway requirements,
many of § 6.2.1’s subparts and the specific features covered by Question 9 were finally resolved by
the issuance of the Original Driveway Permit. 	Others are tailored to the features at issue in the
amendment application. 	For this reason and the reasons stated above, the Court reframes this
Question to ask:
Does the permit amendment application comply with Regulations § 6.2.1(b) with
respect to the driveway’s revised dimensions?
Thus, Applicant’s motion to dismiss Questions 6a and 6e is DENIED. These Questions will remain
before the Court as restated.
7 This Question as originally posed did not address the turnaround areas. 	Thus, as restated by the Court,
Amended Question 6 does not address the turnaround areas.

Page 10 of 12
II. Motion for Stay/Motion to Amend Motion to Stay
By motion filed June 8, 2026 Appellants originally sought a stay of all permits associated with
the driveway project during the pendency of this appeal, including Original Driveway Permit and the
Amended Permit. On August 10, they filed a motion to amend their Motion to Stay, limiting their
request to preservation of certain driveway features they contend are implicated by the Amended
Permit
An appeal from a decision issued by a municipal panel to this Court does not automatically
stay that decision. See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(f); V.R.E.C.P. 5(e). 	While the Court may still issue a
discretionary stay at the request of a party or on its own motion as “necessary to preserve the rights
of the parties,” V.R.E.C.P. 5(e), such stays are an “extraordinary remedy appropriate only when the
movant’s right to relief is clear.” Howard Ctr. Renovation Permit, No. 12-1-13 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 12, 2013) (Walsh, J.). 	In considering whether to take action under this
authority, the Court has looked for the moving party to demonstrate four traditional factors: (1) a
strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury if the stay is not granted; (3) whether
the stay will not substantially harm other parties; and (4) whether the stay will serve the best interests
of the public. Cathedral of the Immaculate Parish Charitable Trust, 23-ENV-00010, slip op. at 8 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 25, 2023) (Durkin, J.) (citation omitted). “The criteria are flexible in as
much as the court may consider varying strengths and weaknesses as to each in determining the
necessity of a stay.” White v. State, No. 14-1-21 Wncv, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Civ. Div. Apr. 28,
2021) (Bent, J.). Courts have loosened the requirement for the first prong of this test when the alleged
irreparable harm is great, allowing parties to demonstrate that they “may” have a likelihood for success
on the merits, as opposed to “strong” likelihood of success. Cathedral of the Immaculate Parish, 23-
ENV-00010, slip op. at 8 (Aug. 25, 2023) (Durkin, J.).
The threat of irreparable harm is the “the single most important prerequisite” supporting the
issuance of an injunction. Cathedral of the Immaculate Parish, 23-ENV-00010, slip op. at 16 (Aug.
25, 2023) (Durkin, J.) To demonstrate irreparable injury, the moving party “must demonstrate an
injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent and that cannot be remedied by
an award of monetary damages.” Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328, 332 (2d Cir.1995)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
As an initial matter, the Court GRANTS Appellants’ Motion to Amend their Motion to Stay.
Even so, Appellants have failed to show they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. As

Page 11 of 12
noted above, the parties dispute the scope of the Amended Permit. Appellants maintain that this issue
need not be resolved in order to grant their motion to stay, because the motion only covers aspects
of the driveway which the parties agree are covered by the permit:
Even under Applicant’s narrow description of the appeal, driveway width, culvert
changes, turnaround areas, and driveway length are before the Court . . . A later order
could require removal, reconstruction, or restoration, but later alteration could make
it more difficult to determine the existing condition that was the subject of Permit
#2025-75 and the appropriate remedy. Once those features are re-worked, the original
as-built condition may be difficult to reconstruct accurately, even with plans and
photographs. 	Where width, grading, disturbance, and drainage are disputed, the
existing physical condition is direct evidence of what was actually constructed and the
conditions the Court may need to evaluate . . . .
Amended Motion for Stay, p. 3.
The Court’s analysis above establishes that the only items over which we have jurisdiction in this
appeal are the length and width of the driveway, the installation and removal of specific culverts, and
the installation of turnaround areas. No party disputes that the Amended Permit seeks approval for
as-built changes to the original driveway plan. Given these facts, the substance of Appellants’ request
for a stay is not entirely clear to the Court. Their motion appears to request that we stay any additional
work related to the amended driveway features based on the possibility we find that those other aspects
of the driveway Appellants seek to have reviewed (width, grading, disturbance, drainage) are implicated
by the Amended Permit and must be adjudicated in this appeal.8
The only aspects of the driveway that this Court could permissibly stay in this appeal would
be work related to the driveway’s dimensions, culverts, and turnaround areas. Because those features
have already been completed, Appellants cannot show they would be irreparably harmed in the
absence of a stay. To the extent Applicant seeks to perform work outside of the scope of the amended
permit’s changes, that would require additional zoning permits from the Town which would be subject
to the Regulations. Were Applicant to improperly alter those features of the driveway which were the
subject of this appeal, this harm could be alleviated through site remediation. To the extent Appellants
assert that Applicant has filed additional permits for driveway extensions, those permits are not before
8 Appellants may pose questions about the amended width of the driveway as it relates to the amended driveway
permit. Appellants’ motion appears to assert that portions of the driveway exceed 24 feet in width. At the same time,
however, it references Applicant’s approval to narrow the entire width of the driveway to 12 feet and states that approval
is “not challenged in this motion.” Amended Motion to Stay, p. 2.

Page 12 of 12
the Court at this time. For these reasons, although we GRANT Appellants’ Motion to Amend, we
DENY their Amended Motion to Stay.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we GRANT in part and DENY in part Applicant’s Motion to
Dismiss. We further GRANT Appellants’ Motion to Amend Motion to Stay and DENY Appellants’
Amended Motion to Stay.
For clarity, the following Questions remain before the Court:
Amended Questions 3c & 3e
Does the amended permit application comply with Regulations § 5.2.1(c)(iv) and (v) based on: 1) the
application’s representation of the amendments as compliant with § 3.2.4(e), and 2) based on the
application’s representation that it contains sufficient information for the Administrative Officer to
determine whether the permit amendments comply with the Regulations?
Amended Questions 6a & 6e
Does the amended permit application comply with Regulations § 5.3.4’s directive to limit the scope
of changes in a permit amendment based on the application’s representations of the driveway’s
dimensions and the installed and removed culverts?
Amended Question 9
Does the permit amendment application comply with Regulations § 6.2.1(b) with respect to the
driveway’s revised dimensions?
Electronically signed September 28, 2026 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(D).
Thomas G. Walsh, Judge
Superior Court, Environmental Division