Motion to Dismiss: DISMISSED

Update to the appeal. In late December, the judge that heard the motion to dismiss ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs - those that have filed the appeal of the wetland decision. In his decision, the judge ruled that the arguments presented by both the town and the developer asking that the appeal be dismissed because it was filed too late, did not hold sway with him. Given that there was more than one newspaper that carried the public notice, both are equally valid and both start the clock ticking with regard to the time period in which an appeal must be filed. The second notice, published in the weekly paper, the Regional Standard (and its free version, Regional Express), in effect, extended the time period for the filing of the appeal.

It is interesting to note that during this hearing, the town and the developer were clearly on the same side. That does not say much for the rights of taxpaying residents! Unfortunately for everyone involved, the motion to dismiss was simply a costly waste of time. Poor judgment, perhaps, by both the town and the developer's attorneys given that there already was clear legal precedence established for the simple issue of whether a public notice printed in a subsequent publication has any binding effect. The judge was careful to note that his decision was intended to give the benefit of the doubt to those people - taxpaying residents - that are so greatly affected by decisions made by the land use commissions in town. This seems appropriate and, unfortunately, not the normal sense that one gets when dealing with the process of land use decision making.

Good advice for the town might be that they stop confusing the issue by printing notices in more than one paper, decide which paper is the official vehicle for notifying the town folks, and then make this clear to those folks. That would be in the spirit of service to the town taxpayers.