1 It is not necessary to qualify for party status in order to be called to testify as a

witness by a party. All testimony is held to the r ules of evidence, whether presented by a party or a non-party witness.

1 STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

} In re: Belisle Planned Unit Development } Conditional Use and Site Plan } Docket Nos. 60-4-08 Vtec and (Appeals of Belisle) } 81-4-08 Vtec }
Decision and Order on Motions relating to Party Sta tus Appellant Travis Belisle appealed in Docket No. 60- 4-08 Vtec from certain conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of Bakersfield in its grant of conditional use approval for a Planned Unit Deve lopment (PUD), and in Docket No. 81- 4-08 Vtec appealed from a decision of the Planning Commission denying approval of the PUD site plan. Appellant is represented by Thomas Walsh, Esq.; the Town of Bakersfield has entered an appearance and has appointed David O vitt as its representative. In Docket No. 60-4-08 Vtec fourteen unrepresented p ersons have filed letters with the Court requesting party status. Stephanie G. Ko ssman filed a letter stating in full “[p]lease accept this as my notice to appear.” The following persons each filed letters requesting “to participate as an individual interes ted party:” Gregory J. Popa, James F. Rice, Nancy K. Hunt, Gary A. Foote, Alice B. Foote, Martha Hyne, John A. Hyne, Deanna M. Smith, and Charles P. Smith. Thomas Kontos, Kathlee n Kontos, Patrick Evans, and Sharon Evans filed written requests “[a]s an interested pa rty opposing” these appeals, requesting “to participate 1 in whatever hearings are held.” A total of ten of the persons entering their appearance in Docket No. 60-4-08 (all except the Ev ans and the Hynes) have also returned their forms for entry of appearance as an unreprese nted party.2

In Docket No. 81-4-08 Vtec eleven unrepresented per sons have filed letters or form entries of appearance requesting party status. Kathleen Kontos, Patrick Evans, and Sharon Evans filed written requests in both docket numbers “[a]s an interested party opposing” these appeals, requesting “to participate in whatev er hearings are held.” The following persons each simply filed the form entries of appea rance in Docket No. 81-4-08 Vtec: Robert J. Fanning, Carrie L. Fanning, Thomas Kontos, Steph anie Kossman, Gregory J. Popa, James F. Rice, Gary A. Foote, and Alice B. Foote. Nancy K. Hunt, Martha Hyne, John A. Hyne, Deanna M. S mith, and Charles P. Smith did not file an entry of appearance in DocketNo. 81-4-08 Vtec. Robert J. Fanning and Carrie L. Fanning did not file an entry of appearan ce in Docket No. 60-4-08 Vtec. The Court issued a scheduling order after the May 1 9, 2008 conference, specifying deadlines of May 30, 2008 in each case for the poten tial “interested parties” to enter their appearances, to file the unrepresented party (“pro se”) forms, and to specify whether they were claiming party status as individuals or as a g roup in either case. A copy of the scheduling order is attached, and compare 24 V.S.A . § 4465(b)(3) and (b)(4), which were also attached to the scheduling order. On June 12, 2008 Appellant moved to deny party status as individuals (that is, under § 4465(b)(3)) to Alice B. Foote, Gary A. Foote, Ste phanie Kossman, Nancy K. Hunt, Gregory J. Popa, James F. Rice, Charles P. Smith, and Deanna M. Smith. Those individuals plus Thomas and Kathleen Kontos filed an opposition to that motion. The opposition to individual party status does not dispute any of the facts asserted in Appellant’s motion, either as to the distances o f the property owned or occupied by those individuals from the project tract of land, o r as to the lack of potential for a particularized physical or environmental impact on their interests from the project. While it is not necessary to be an adjoining neighbor in order to show such an effect on one’s interests, none of the eight individuals asserted s uch an interest in opposition to the3

motion. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is h ereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Appellant’s motion to deny party status to the list ed eight persons as individual interested parties under 24 V.S.A. §4465(b)(3) is GRANTED; the y are hereby dismissed as individual interested parties. On June 24, 2008, Alice B. Foote, Gary A. Foote, St ephanie Kossman, Nancy K. Hunt, Gregory J. Popa, James F. Rice, Charles P. Smith, D eanna M. Smith, Thomas Kontos and Kathleen Kontos moved for the Court to recognize th eir group as having group party status (that is, under § 4465(b)(4)). Appellant fi led an opposition to that motion. However, the persons requesting group party status under § 4 465(b)(4) did not in their request address any of the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4465( b)(4). In particular, they did not show that the group had existed as a group at the time o f the municipal proceedings or had filed the required petition with the ZBA or Planning Comm ission. To the contrary, most of the persons now seeking standing as a group had specifi cally requested “individual interested party” status in the present appeals. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby O RDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion for party status as a group under 24 V.S .A. §4465(b)(4) is DENIED. As of the disposition of these motions, Thomas Kont os, Kathleen Kontos, Sharon L.
Evans and Patrick H. Evans remain as individual int erested parties in both cases; Martha Hyne and John A. Hyne remain as individual interest ed parties in Docket No. 60-4-08 Vtec; and Robert J. Fanning and Carrie L. Fanning remain as individual interested parties in Docket No. 81-4-08 Vtec. Pursuant to the May 22, 2 008 scheduling order this matter shall proceed to mediation.

Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 26 thday of June, 2008.

_________________________________________________ Merideth Wright Environmental Judge