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 Fowler NOV Docket No. 159-10-11 Vtec (Appeal of DRB decision upholding a NOV)

Title: Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to In terested Person Status (Filing No.1) Filed: February 15, 2012 Filed by: Appellant James Fowler Response filed on 3/7/12 by 18 Interested Persons Reply filed on 3/19/12 by Appellant Supplemental response filed on 4/5/12 by 18 Interes ted Persons Additional supplemental response filed on 8/22/12 b y 18 Interested Persons

X Granted (in part) X Denied (in part) ___ Other

James Fowler (“Appellant”) has appealed a decision by the Town of Richford Development Review Board (“the DRB”) upholding the issuance of a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to him by the Town of Richford Zoning Admin istrator. On August 8, 2012 this Court issued a Decision denying, in part, Appellant’s mot ion to dismiss twelve interested persons and the Town of Richford (“the Town”) from this appeal. In our August 8, 2012 Decision we denied Appellant’ s motion as it concerns Brian Bonk, Jay Bochner, and the Town. We did not reach a fina l conclusion as to the status of the ten other individuals who Appellant sought to dismiss—Brian F arrar, John Bridgeman, Pen Bridgeman, Jeffrey Goyne, Charlotte Rosshandler, Robert Fretz, Alison Osborne, John Osborne, Kitten Ellison, and Luke Parsons. Instead, we provided an additional fifteen days to the named individuals to submit pertinent information. We ha ve received a timely, responsive filing, and now proceed to render a final determination on the status of these ten individuals in this appeal.

Two matters remained unclear from the ten named ind ividuals’ previous filings. One was whether four of the individuals claiming to be entitled to interested person status under 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(4) are voters or real property own ers in the Town of Richford, a requirement included in the provision. The Court has now recei ved affidavits from three of these individuals—Alison Osborne, John Osborne, and Kitte n Ellison—representing that each is a property owner in the Town of Richford. With this information, in addition to that discussed in our August 8, 2012 Decision, we conclude that the f ollowing eight individuals (whom Appellant’s motion challenges) qualify as part of a group of ten or more property owners entitled to interested person status under 24 V.S.A . § 4465(b)(4): John Bridgeman, Pen Bridgeman, Jeffrey Goyne, Charlotte Rosshandler, Ro bert Fretz, Alison Osborne, John Osborne, and Kitten Ellison. We therefore DENY Appellant’s motion to dismiss these individuals.In re Fowler NOV, No. 159-10-11 Vtec (EO on Mot. fo r Partial Summ. J.) (09-19-12) P g. 2 of 2.

We have received no additional information indicati ng that Luke Parsons is a voter or property owner. Thus, we conclude that he is not e ntitled to participate in this appeal as part of the aforementioned group with interested person sta tus under 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(4). We further note that we have no information before us indicating that Mr. Parsons qualifies as an individual interested persons under 24 V.S.A. § 446 5(b)(3), and neither has his counsel so argued. Consequently, we GRANT Appellant’s motion to dismiss Luke Parsons from th is appeal.
The second, and final, matter that remained unclear from the previous filings is whether Brian Farrar is impacted by the activities for whic h Appellant received a NOV (that is, by Appellant’s use of a motocross bike), and therefore qualifies as an interested person under 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). The demonstration of a “physi cal or environmental impact on the person’s interest” is required by 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). A t the time of our August 8, 2012 Decision we had no allegations describing an impact on Mr. Farr ar from Appellant’s activities, but we gave Mr. Farrar additional time to submit such informati on. Because we have received no additional information from Mr. Farrar, we GRANT Appellant’s motion to dismiss Brian Farrar from thi s appeal.
In summary, we DENY Appellant’s motion to dismiss John Bridgeman, Pen Bridgeman, Jeffrey Goyne, Charlotte Rosshandler, Robert Fretz, Alison Osborne, John Osborne, and Kitten Ellison. They remain interested persons in this ap peal. We GRANT Appellant’s motion to
DISMISS Luke Parsons and Brian Farrar from this appeal. Th ey shall receive this Entry Order, but will be removed from this case and receive no a dditional correspondence hereafter.

_________________________________________ September 19, 2012 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date

== =================================================== ======================== Date copies sent to: ____________ Clerk's Initials _______ Copies sent to: Annie Dwight, Attorney for Appellant James Fowler Gerald R. Tarrant, Attorney for Interested Persons K athleen Ross, Richard Ross, John Bridgman, Norris Kyle

, Helen Kyle, Sally Bochner, Lilias-Mary Paddon, B rian Bonk, Jeffrey Goyne, Charlotte Rosshandler, Kit ten Ellison, Luke Parsons, Jay Bochner, Pen Bridgman , Brian Farrar, Alison Osborne, John Osborne, and Ro bert Fretz Michael S. Gawne, Attorney for Town of Richford Interested Person Charles Hotchkin, pro se