Title: In re Tahmoush

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Tahmoush (2001-481); 174 Vt. 530; 811 A.2d 199

[Filed 14-Aug-2002]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 27-Sep-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-481

                               JUNE TERM, 2002


  In re Frank Tahmoush	               }       APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }       Environmental Board 
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }       DOCKET NOS. 3W0815 & 3W081501-EB 


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Petitioners Roger and JoAnn Goodspeed appeal a decision by the Vermont
  Environmental Board dismissing their claim seeking revocation of landowner
  Frank Tahmoush's land use permit for lack of standing.  The Board held that
  petitioners were not "adjoining property owners" as defined by
  Environmental Board Rule (EBR) 2(R).  Petitioners therefore lacked standing
  under EBR 38(A), which identifies parties able to bring a revocation
  action.  We affirm.

       On April 19, 1999, the Environmental Board granted landowner a permit
  to develop a property in the Quechee Lakes community.  Petitioners, also
  residents of Quechee Lakes, own a property that sits across a fifty-foot
  greenbelt from landowner's proposed development.  In June 2001, petitioners
  sought an order from the Environmental Board revoking landowner's permit
  pursuant to EBR 38(A), 6 Code of Vermont Rules 12 003 001-33.  EBR 38(A)
  states that a "petition for revocation of a permit under 10 V.S.A. §
  6090(c) may be made to the board by . . . any adjoining property owner
  whose property interests are directly affected by an alleged violation." 
  As such, to have standing in a revocation petition, an individual must be
  an "adjacent property owner" and must have property interests that are
  directly affected by an alleged violation.  Before the Board, petitioners
  represented that they were adjoining property owners with property affected
  by landowner's alleged violations, and therefore met the threshold standing
  inquiry.

       Environmental Board Rules define an "adjoining property owner" as one
  who owns property that:

         1.  shares a boundary with a tract of land where a
             proposed or actual development or subdivision is 
             located[;] or
         2.  is adjacent to a tract of land where a proposed or
             actual development or subdivision is located and the two
             properties are separated only by a river, stream, or a public
             highway.

  EBR 2(R), 6 Code of Vermont Rules 12 003 001-11.  The Board held a hearing
  to determine whether or not petitioners satisfied these requirements and
  found that petitioners' property does not share a boundary with landowner's
  proposed development.  Further, the Board found that the properties are 

 

  not separated by a river, stream or public highway.  Instead, it found that
  a privately owned greenbelt separates the two properties.  Because
  properties separated by a greenbelt are not "adjoining" under EBR 2(R), the
  Board held that petitioners are not "adjoining property owners." 
  Petitioners thus failed to meet the threshold standing requirements of EBR
  38(A) to bring a revocation petition, and the Board dismissed their claim. 
  Petitioners brought this appeal.  

       Petitioners argue that the Board's decision to deny standing was
  unreasonable and irrational.  They contend that the Board should have
  included properties separated by greenbelts in the definition of
  "adjoining" because their exclusion leads to an unjust result in
  petitioners' case.  Petitioners urge this Court to construe EBR 2(R)(2) to
  include properties separated by greenbelts in the definition of
  "adjoining," thus allowing them to have standing in their matter before the
  Board.  

       We conclude that the Environmental Board properly held that
  petitioners lacked standing for their claim.  We note that petitioners do
  not contest that a greenbelt separates the properties.  Instead,
  petitioners argue that properties separated by a greenbelt should be
  included in the definition of "adjoining."  The Board noted in its
  findings, however, that the parties did not properly address this argument
  at the hearing or in their briefs to the Board.  Because plaintiffs did not
  raise this issue before the Environmental Board, we decline to address it
  on appeal.  See In re White, __ Vt. __, __, 779 A.2d 1264, 1270-71.(2001) 
  Thus, we find that the Environmental Board correctly found that petitioners
  are not "adjoining property owners" under EBR 2(R).  Under EBR 38(A),
  therefore, they lack standing to bring a revocation petition before the
  Board.

       Affirmed.


                                       BY THE COURT:


                                       _______________________________________
                                       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       James L. Morse, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice