State of Vermont Superior Court—Environmental Division

=================================================== ======================= E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N

=================================================== =======================

In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Inc. Docket No. 190-11-10 Vtec (Appeal from Shaftsbury DRB determination on applic ation for thirteen zoning permits)

Title: Motion for Contempt (Filing No. 12) Filed: April 25, 2011 Filed By: Jon S. Readnour, Attorney for Interested Persons Owen and Katherine Beauchesne Response in Opposition filed on 5/9/11 by James P.W . Goss, Attorney for Appellant/Applicant Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Inc.

___ Granted X Denied ___ Other

This appeal follows the denial by the Town of Shaft sbury (“Town”) Development Review Board (“DRB”) of an application for approval of thirteen permits submitted by Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Inc. (“Hale Mountain”) concerning improvement s on its property at 684 Rod and Gun Club Road. Hale Mountain appealed the DRB’s decision; neighbor s Owen and Katherine Beauchesne and the Town appear as interested persons.

The Beauchesnes ask that we find Hale Mountain in c ontempt of a decision we issued on December 15, 2009 responding to cross-motions for s ummary judgment filed in a prior proceeding, In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club (Appeal of Beauchesn e). Nos. 149-8-04 Vtec and 259-12-05 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Dec. 15, 2009) (Durkin, J). The Beauche snes argue that Hale Mountain violated the Court’s Decision and associated Judgment Order by removing, in March of this year, a fence on and next to the Beauchesnes’ property line prior to seeking a munic ipal permit authorizing the removal. As a remedy, the Beauchesnes seek a Court order requiring Hale Mount ain to file an application with the Town for such a permit.
First and foremost, we note that this motion for co ntempt has been filed in the current appeal and not in the dockets associated with the prior Order that the Beauchesnes assert Hale Mountain has viola ted. While the current appeal involves the same parties and project as the prior proceeding, the Beauchesne s are essentially seeking to enforce an Order the Cou rt issued in the prior proceeding. 1
Additionally, the specific violation the Beauchesne s allege—that Hale Mountain has failed to seek a permit for fence removal—is not within the s cope of the current appeal, which concerns an appea l from the application for the zoning permits that Ha le Mountain did submit to the Town. As such, we have no jurisdiction in this proceeding to consider the pending motion.
For these reasons, we DENY the Beauchesnes’ motion for contempt.

_________________________________________ ________ August 23, 2011_________ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date

1 The record before us also does not reveal that th e complained-of fence removal has been the subject of either an enforcement action by the Town or private enforceme nt action by the Beauchesnes.Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, No. 190-11-10 Vtec (EO on Motion for Contempt) (08-23-2011) P g. 2 of 2

=================================================== ======================== Date copies sent to: ____________ Clerk's Initials _______ Copies sent to: James P.W. Goss, Attorney for Appellant/Applicant H ale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Inc. Jon S. Readnour, Attorney for Interested Persons Ow en and Katherine Beauchesne Robert E. Woolmington, Attorney for the Town of Sha ftsbury