                                            State of Vermont
                                 Superior Court—Environmental Division

======================================================================
                   ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
======================================================================
In re Conlon CU Permit                                             Docket No. 2-1-12 Vtec
(Appeal of Planning Commission grant of conditional use approval for two-lot subdivision)

Title: Motion to Strike Questions 12, 15, 16 and 18.
Response filed on 10/26/12 by Appellants John and Julia Baldwin
 X Granted (in part)                       X Denied (in part)                        ___ Other
        On September 14, 2012, this Court provided John and Julia Baldwin (“Appellants”) with
additional time to file a revised Statement of Questions, given that the Court had previously
dismissed Appellants’ Questions 7, 10, 11, and 19 and provided notice that the Court intended
to also dismiss Appellants’ Questions 12, 15, 16 and 18, if Appellants “fail[ed] to reframe these
four Questions or fail to raise cognizable issues in their reframed Question(s).” In re Conlon CU
Permit, No. 2-1-12 Vtec, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Super Ct., Envtl. Div. Aug. 30, 2012).
      In response, Appellants did not file a revised Statement of Questions, but rather on
October 26, 2012 filed a document that contains the following sub-titles: Questions 12 & 18
Revised and Merged and Questions 15 & 16 Revised and Merged.
        Appellants’ revised and merged Questions 12 and 18 appear to challenge the proposed
Staniscia/Conlon subdivision and structure’s conformance with certain provisions in the Town
of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. While the language Appellants chose to use in their revised
and merged Questions 12 and 18 is somewhat confusing, it provides sufficient notice of the
basis for Appellants’ legal challenge. We therefore order that Appellants’ original Questions 12
and 18 are hereby STRICKEN and replaced with the revised and merged language Appellants
offered for those Questions.
       Appellants revised and merged Questions 15 and 16 do not provide any reference to a
zoning ordinance provision that is within this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain in this appeal.
We therefore STRIKE Appellant’s Questions 15 and 16 and disregard their offered revised and
merged language.
       The Court Manager shall now set this matter for a pre-trial conference. The parties
should prepare to discuss at that conference what remains for this matter to be ready for trial
scheduling.


_________________________________________                                      February 5, 2013
       Thomas S. Durkin, Judge                                                     Date
=============================================================================
Date copies sent: ____________                                             Clerk's Initials: _______
Copies sent to:
 Appellants John and Julia Baldwin, pro se
 Martin Nitka, Attorney for Applicants/Appellees Edward Conlon and Debra Staniscia
 Frederick M. Glover, Attorney for Town of Plymouth
