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 Interested 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 Interested Persons 

Additional supplemental response filed on 8/22/12 by 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 Administrator. On August 8, 2012 this Court 

issued a Decision denying, in part, Appellant’s motion 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 final conclusion as to the status of the ten other 

individuals who Appellant sought to dismiss—Brian Farrar, 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 have 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 individuals’ 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 owners in the Town of Richford, a requirement 

included in the provision. The Court has now received affidavits from three of these 

individuals—Alison Osborne, John Osborne, and Kitten 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 following 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, Robert 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. for Partial Summ. J.) (09-19-12) Pg. 2 of 2. 

We have received no additional information indicating that Luke Parsons is a voter or 

property owner. Thus, we conclude that he is not entitled to participate in this appeal as part of 

the aforementioned group with interested person status 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. § 4465(b)(3), and neither has his counsel so 

argued. Consequently, we GRANT Appellant’s motion to dismiss Luke Parsons from this 

appeal. 

The second, and final, matter that remained unclear from the previous filings is whether 

Brian Farrar is impacted by the activities for which 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 “physical or environmental impact on the person’s 

interest” is required by 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). At the time of our August 8, 2012 Decision we 

had no allegations describing an impact on Mr. Farrar from Appellant’s activities, but we gave 

Mr. Farrar additional time to submit such information. Because we have received no additional 

information from Mr. Farrar, we GRANT Appellant’s motion to dismiss Brian Farrar from this 

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 appeal. We GRANT Appellant’s motion to 

DISMISS Luke Parsons and Brian Farrar from this appeal. They shall receive this Entry Order, 

but will be removed from this case and receive no additional 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 Kathleen Ross, Richard Ross, John Bridgman, Norris Kyle, 

 Helen Kyle, Sally Bochner, Lilias-Mary Paddon, Brian Bonk, Jeffrey Goyne, Charlotte Rosshandler, Kitten 

 Ellison, Luke Parsons, Jay Bochner, Pen Bridgman, Brian Farrar, Alison Osborne, John Osborne, and Robert Fretz 

Michael S. Gawne, Attorney for Town of Richford 

Interested Person Charles Hotchkin, pro se