Stowe Country Club LLC DRB Preliminary Subdivision PUD Application - Decision on Motion

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division Docket No. 25-ENV-00021
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Stowe Country Club, LLC Application for Preliminary Subdivision/PUD Review

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion to Strike (Motion: 2)
Filer: Christopher D. Roy, Esq., attorney for Stowe Country Club, LLC
Filed Date: July 11, 2025
No response filed.
The motion is DENIED.
This is an appeal of a March 4, 2025 decision of the Town of Stowe (Town) Development
Review Board (DRB) denying an application for preliminary subdivision/planned unit development
(PUD) review submitted by Stowe Country Club, LLC (Applicant) related to land Applicant owns at
7320 Mountain Road, Stowe, Vermont (the Property). Presently before the Court is Applicant’s
motion to strike the notice of appearance filed by Meadows at Stoweflake III Owners Association,
Inc. (Meadows) because it was signed by a non-attorney. Applicant asserts that Meadows, a
corporation, must be represented by an attorney or, alternatively, have been granted leave for non-
attorney representation. No response has been filed.
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).
First, Meadows’ notice of appearance was filed on April 19, 2025. The present motion was
filed on July 11, 2025 and is therefore untimely under Rule 12(f). Further, Applicant has failed to
identify how Meadows’ notice of appearance constitutes an “insufficient defense or . . . [a] redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Id.

Page 1 of 2
Functionally, Applicant seeks Meadows’ dismissal for failure to be represented by an attorney
or have been granted leave to be represented by a non-attorney. A motion to strike is not the proper
vehicle for dismissing a party on these grounds. As such, the motion is DENIED.
In denying the motion, the Court recognizes that Applicant is correct with respect to
Meadows’ need for proper representation. For Meadows to continue to appear in this matter it must
be represented by an attorney or be granted leave to be represented by a non-attorney. Vt. Agency of
Nat. Res. v. Upper Valley Reg’l Landfill Corp., 159 Vt. 454, 455 (1992). As such, should Meadows
continue to seek interested party status in this matter and participate in these proceedings, it must
retain counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance in this matter on or before Friday,
October 17, 2025. If Meadows does not retain counsel and it still wishes to participate in this matter
it must file a motion for leave to be represented by a non-attorney. Such a motion must demonstrate
the four necessary factors described in Upper Valley Reg’l Landfill Corp.. They are:
(1) the organization cannot afford to hire counsel, nor can it secure
counsel on a pro bono basis, (2) the proposed lay representative is
authorized to represent the organization, (3) the proposed lay
representative demonstrates adequate legal knowledge and skills to
represent the organization without unduly burdening the opposing
party or the court, and (4) the representative shares a common interest
with the organization.
Id. at 458.
Any motion, with any supporting exhibits, must be filed by Friday, October 17, 2025.
Responses to any motion must be filed in accordance with the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.
Failure to file either a notice of appearance by an attorney on Meadows’ behalf or to timely seek and
be granted leave to be represented by a non-attorney will result in Meadows’ dismissal from this action.
Electronically signed September 17, 2025 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(D).

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge
Superior Court, Environmental Division

Page 2 of 2