Case Title: In re Catamount Slate, Inc.

Citation: 176 Vt. 284, 2004 VT 14, 844 A.2d 787

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-02-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Catamount Slate, Inc. (2002-142); 176 Vt. 284; 844 A.2d 787

2004 VT 14

[Filed 13-Feb-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.
  	

                                 2004 VT 14

                                No. 2002-142

  In re Catamount Slate, Inc.	                 Supreme Court
  d/b/a Reed Family Slate Products, and 
  Fred and Suellen Reed	                         On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Board

                                                 September Term, 2003

                                                 Marcy Harding, Chair

  David Putter, Montpelier, and Stephanie A. Lorentz of Lorentz, Lorentz and
    Harnett, Rutland, for Appellants.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Jeanne Elias and Wendy Morgan,
    Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.)
            and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   In this appeal from an order of the
  environmental board, we examine a 1995 amendment to Act 250, 10 V.S.A.
  chapter 151, delineating the Act's jurisdiction over Vermont's slate
  quarries.  See 1995, No. 30.  The central question presented is whether a
  district coordinator and the environmental board may reopen a final
  determination issued pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6007(c) on a slate quarry's
  exempt status under Act 250 at the request of neighbors who were not
  notified of and served with the original opinion holding the quarry exempt. 
  Under the facts presented here, we conclude that the environmental board,
  and the district coordinator, erred by revisiting the exempt status of
  plaintiffs' slate quarries registered in accordance with 10 V.S.A. §§
  6007(c) and 6081(l) at the request of three neighbors who did not receive
  notice of the registration because they were not entitled to it. 
  Accordingly, we vacate the order of the environmental board, and remand the
  matter for dismissal.

       ¶  2.  This case takes place against the backdrop of Act 250, 10
  V.S.A. chapter 151, the State's historic land-use law.  Effective on June
  1, 1970, Act 250 was "a philosophical compromise" between protecting and
  controlling the State's lands and environment, and avoiding an
  "administrative nightmare."  See In re Agency of Admin., 141 Vt. 68, 76,