STATE OF VERMONT

VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT<= /p>

TOWN OF BRISTOL, &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; }

Plaintiff, &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; }

&nbs= p; = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; }

&nbs= p; = &n= bsp; v. = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; } = Docket No: 45-3-04 Vtec

&nbs= p; = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; } = Zoning Enforcement Proceeding

PETER J. NELSON, MARK NELSON, = ; }

LAURA GORDON, JAMES N. NELSON = ; }

and ANGELA LAFOREST, &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; }

Defendants. &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; }

<= /o:p>

Order on Motion for Reconsiderati= on

Now before the Court is Defendants’ joint request that the Court reconsi= der its September 30, 2005 decision to issue a default judgment against Defend= ant James N. Nelson and to not open four default judgments against Defendant property owners Peter J. Nelson, Mark Nelson, Laura Gordon (a/k/a Lora Gor= don), and Angela LaForest. The und= erlying action was brought by the Town of Bristol= (Town) against all Defendants as co-owners of property at 81 West Street which is primarily occupied by Defendant Peter J. Nelson. T= he Town claimed in its Complaint of March 22, 2004, that Defendants caused or allowed numerous violations of= the Town Zoning Bylaws and Regulations (Bylaws) regarding the collection and storage of motor vehicles and the operation of a junkyard at <= st1:address>81 West Street.=

Defendants were originally represented by Kevin E. Brown, Esq., but after his motion = to withdraw was granted on Aug= ust 24, 2004, Defendants represented themselves until retaining W.&nbs= p;Scott Fewell, Esq. sometime in late 2004 or early 2005. The Town is represented by Amanda= S. E. Lafferty, Esq.

Defendants’ new motion for reconsideration of our prior Order argues that the Court pr= evented Defendants from presenting evidence on the duration of the violations, tha= t the Court levied fines in excess of $36,000 on all Defendants, and that Defend= ant James N. Nelson’s health prevented him from adequately responding to= the Town’s notice of violation and enforcement proceedings.

We again decline to exercise our discretionary authority under V.R.C.P. 60(b)= because we find no extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from judgment. See John A. Russell Corp. v. B= ohlig, 170 Vt. 12, 24 (1999). While Defendants have only recent= ly retained counsel on their behalf and begun litigating this matter, their efforts are, at the very least, a year and a half late. This Court has spent considerable= time and resources on this matter, including responding to Defendants’ specific request to be heard, only to have all five Defendants choose to n= ot appear and respond at scheduled hearings, particularly those scheduled in = the Fall of 2004. Each of the fi= ve Defendants was given notice in this matter, and on each occasion, each ind= ividual Defendant refused to respond to the Court. This case is not simply the actions of one Defendant ignoring a not= ice from this Court. All five pr= operty owners ostensibly refused to respond in an efficient, timely manner. We are still discussing zoning vi= olations that occurred almost two years ago—the original Notices of Violation= are dated November 24, 2003.

The Court recognizes that Defendant Peter J. Nelson had some serious health and depression issues to address during 2004.= However, Mr. Nelson points to no direct evidence in his affidavit w= here his illness prevented both him and his co-Defendants (all of whom are co-o= wners of the real estate and appear to be brothers or sisters of Mr. Nelson), fr= om appearing in or responding to the Court. Apparently, all Defendants believe Mr. Nelson’s illness constitutes good cause for all Defendants in this matter to ignore the Cou= rt proceedings on the Town’s zoning complaint.&nbs= p; This is not the case, as Defendants, including Peter J. Nelson, had ample time in 2004, almost ten months, to respond.

Peter J. Nelson repeatedly asserts that the violations had been remedied and tha= t he had complied with the Town’s zoning bylaws. His assertions are unavailing, as= the underlying violations can no longer be in dispute, since the notices of violation were issued in late-November 2003, were unappealed and cannot no= w be challenged. 24 V.S.A. §= 4472.

Lastly, Defendants challenge the fines levied in this enforcement proceeding as excessive. Where Defendants = refuse to answer to alleged violations of zoning bylaws, it is entirely reasonabl= e to assume that Defendants will continue to refuse to cure the zoning violatio= ns, some of which are viewed as quite serious by this Court, as they can lead = to hazardous waste contamination of Defendants’ property and surroundin= g properties owned by others. In this ins= tance, the Court was justified in levying the large fines because it appeared tha= t none of the five Defendants would take responsibility for the violations at the property. Furthermore, in li= ght of the potential $100/day fines for each violation, the Court’s imposit= ion of fines of $30/day for each violation until the date of the preliminary injunction, May 26, 2004, and then $20/day after that date for each day of= the violation appears even more reasonable and within the Court’s discre= tion.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. A hearing on the penalties to be assessed in this matter regarding Defendant James N. Nelson and whether su= ch fines should run jointly and severally with the fines imposed on the other Defendants, as well as a preceding site visit, are scheduled for December 22, 2005, at 8:30 A.M. The parties should provide directions to the site by December 16, 2005.

= Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 10^th day of November, 2005.

= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = ________________________________________

= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = Thomas S. Durkin, Environme= ntal Judge